
    THE UNITED STATES v. CHARLES MITCHELL.
    (18 C. Cls. R., 281; 109 U. S. R., 146.)
    
      Onthe defendants’ Appeal.
    
    The Eevised. Statutes (§ 2070) fix the salary of an Indian interpreter at $400 a year. Subsequently, the appropriation act 1877 appropriates only $300, but contains this distinct provision: “ For additional pay of said interpreters, to be distributed in the discretion of the Seei’eiarg of the Interior, six thousand dollars.” The claimant seeks to recover the difference between the amount fixed by the Eevised Statutes and the amount specifically appropriated by the act 1877.
    In the court below the case is submitted, argued, and decided solely upon the point whether an officer whose salary was fixed by law can recover the balance over and above a less amount appropriated by Congress, the court holding that he can recover.
    In the Supreme Court that distinct question is not passed upon, the decision turning upon other language in the appropriation act, especially that which gave the Secretary of the Interior a fund by which he might increase salaries, a provision which was neither considered nor referred to in the court below. The Supreme Court accordingly reverses the judgment of the court below, holding that it was the intention of Congress to reduce the salary to $300, with such additions from the general fund as the Secretary of the Interior might allow.
   Mr. Justice Woods

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Couit, November 5, 1883.  