
    JOHN C. SWEET v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [Not reported in C. Cls. R.;
    189 U. S. R., 471.]
    
      On the defendants’ Appeal.
    
    The court below filed the following- findings of fact and conclusion of law:
    1. Claimant was mustered into the military service of the United States at Camp Ramsey, in the city of St. Paul, in the State of Minnesota, his place of residence then being Minneapolis, in said State, on-the 17th day of August, 1898, as second lieutenant in Company A, Fifteenth Regiment Minnesota Volunteers.
    2. He served honestly and faithfully in said regiment within the limits of the United States until the 15th day of October, 1898, when he was honorably discharged the service under Special Orders, No. 244, Headquarters of the Army, as follows:
    “ Special Orders, ] “Headquarters oe the Army, V “Adjutant-General’s Oeeice, “No. 244. J “ Washington, October IB, 1898.
    
    * * * * -x-
    “93. By direction of the Secretary of War, the following-named officers, having tendered their resignations, are honorably discharged the service of the United States, to take effect this date:
    
      “Second Lieut. John C. Sweet, Fifteenth Minnesota Volunteer Infantry.
    *****
    “By command of Major-General Miles:
    “H. 0. Corbin,
    11 Adjutant-General. ’ ’
    "When discharged he was with his regiment in line of duty at Camp Meade, Pa., which is distant from, the claimant’s residence, Minneapolis, Minn., or his place of muster in, St. Paul, Minn., 1,147 miles.
    3. His daily rate of pay at the time of muster out and discharge was §3.89.
    4. The claimant was not furnished transportation or subsistence in kind, but returned to his residence at Minneapolis, Minn., at his o.wn expense; nor has he been paid travel pay or commutation of subsistence.
    TKe court below decides that the claimant is entitled to travel pay and commutation for subsistence from Camp Meade, Pa., to St. Paul, Minn.
    The decision of the court below is reversed on the ground that the statute (Rev. Stat., sec. 1289, act Féb. 87, 1877; 19 Stat. L., 243) is not so clear as to make it necessary to disturb the long-established practice of the Department.
   Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 27, 1903.  