author: Mr. Chief Justice TANEY

text:
    The state of Maryland, for the use of Washington county, Plaintiff in Error, v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, Defendants.
    The state of Maryland, in 1836, passed a law 'directing a subscription of 563,000,000 to be made to the capital sldck of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company; with the following proviso, “That if the said company shall not locate the said road in. the manner provided for in this act, then, and in that case, they shall forfeit $1,000,000 to the state of Maryland for "the use of Washington county.
    In March, 1841, the state passed another act repealing so much of the prior act as made it the duty of the company to construct the road by the route '• therein-prescribed; remitting and releasing the penalty, and directing the discontinuance of any suit brought to recover the same.
    The proviso was a measure of state policy, which it had a right to change, if the policy was afterwards discovered to be erroneous, and neither the commissioners, nor the county, nor any one of its citizens acquired any separate or private tntcrest under it, which could be maintained in a court of justice^

      Jt was a’penalty,-inflicted upon the’company, as a punishment for disobeying ' the law; and the.assent of-the company to it, as a supplemental charter, is ’ 'not-sufficient to deprive it of the character of 'a penalty.
    A clause of forfeiture in a law is- to he construed differently from a similar ' "clause in:an:.engagement between-individuals. A legislature can impose it as a punishment, hut individuals can.only make it a matter of contract. . -Being a penalty imposed'by law; the legislature had a right to remit it
    This case was brought up'by writ pf. error, under the 25th section of the Judiciary .Act, from the Court of Appeals for the Western Shore of Maryland.
    The facts were these:—
    On tire 4th of June, 1836, (Laws of Maryland, l835j chap. 395,) the legislature of Maryland passed an act entitled “An act for the promotion of internal improvement,” by which , subscriptions were directed^ to. be made, on certain terms, to the capital stock of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, and Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, to the amount of $>3,000,000 to each company. The conduct pf the- canal company having, no bearing upon the question involved in the present suit, it is not riecéssary to notice, any further tire parts of the law which related to it.
    A part of the 5th section of the act was as follows';
    , “And the said treasurer shall not make any payment-aforesaid.' for subscription to the stock of the Baltimore, and Ohio Railroad Company, until after a majority of the directors appointed therein . on behalf of this state shall have certified to the treasurer in .writing, supported by the oath or affirmation of a majority of said directors,, that they sincerely jbeliéve in their certificate and statement, that, with the subscription by this act authorized to be made to said com* pany’s stock, and with the subscription which the city, of'Baltimore may have made by virtue of an act, passed at ¿December session of the yeár eighteen hundred and thirty-five of this Assembly, or that independently of any subscription by any other public authority than the. city of Baltimore, as aforesaid, and of the cities of Pittsburg and Wheeling, and exclusive of any. loan, secured to it, exclusive of all future profits and debts' due by the company on interest, the said railroad company in their opinion have funds sufficient to complete the said railroad from the Ohio river, by way of and through Cumberland, Hagerstown, and Boonsborough, to its present track near to Harper’s Ferry; and it is hereby declared to be and made the duty of the said company to, and they shall, so locate and .construct the said road as to pass through each of said places; which certificate of said directors' shall be accompanied by an estimate or estimates of one or more skilful and competent engineers, made out after a particular and minute survey, of the route of said road by him ■or them, and verified by his or their affidavit, showing that the whole cost of .said work will not he greater than the amount of' funds'the said directors shall certify to have been received by said company, and applicable to the construction of the-saidroad': 'Provided, That if the said Baltimore and Ohio Railróad Company, shall not-locate the said road in.the manner provided for in this act, then, and in that case they-shall1 forfeit one million of dollars to the state of Maryland for the use of Washington county.”
    This act was accepted by the railroad company, .in a general meeting of stockholders, and information thereof communicated to ■ the governor, on the 26th of July; 1836. ■
    On the 24th' of September, 1836, the treasurer made his subscription of. $3,000,000 to the capital stock of the company.
    On the 1st of October, 1838, a majority of. directors,on behalf of the state gave the .certificate and statement required by the act.
    . The railroad company having finally located, and being' in the act of constructing their road, without the limits :of Washington county, within'which Hagerstown and Boonsborough are situated, a suit was brought in. Frederick county, Maryland, in February, 1841, in the name of the state of Maryland, for the use of Washington county against the railroad company in ah action of debt to recover $1,000,000.'
    In March, 1841, the legislature of Maryland passed an act in which they say, “ that so much of the 5th section,of the act of 1835 as makes it the duty of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company to construct the said road so as to- pass through Hagerstown'and Boonsborough, be and the same is hereby repealed; and that' the for- . feiture of one million of dollars reserved to the state of Marylánd as a penalty, in case the said Baltimore and Ohio Railroad' Company shall not locate the said road' in the manner provided for in that act, be and the same .is hereby remitted and released,- and any suit instituted to recover the same sum of one million of dollars, or any part thereof, be and’the same is hereby declared.to be discontinued and of no effect.” .
    . In October, 1841, the defendant pleaded the general issue, and set forth the above act.
    ’ In February, 1842, the case came on for trial, upon the following agreed statement of facts:
    It is admitted in. this case, that the commissioners of Washington . county, the parties at whose instance this action was instituted for the use .of Washington county, were at the time of institution of this suit, and still are a body corporate,'duly elected and organized, ■under and by-virtue of the act pf Assembly of Maryland of 1829, chap. 21, and its supplementary acts. .It is also.admitted that the defendants are, and'were at the institution of this suit,'a-body corporate, duly- existing under and by virtue of the act of Assembly of Maryland of 1826, chap. 123, and its supplementary aets. It is also'admitted that this suit is brought at the instance of said commissioners of Washington county to recover,, for the use of said county, the $1,000,000 which they allege to be forfeited to .the said. state, for the use of said county, under the provisions of the 5th section of the act of 1835, chaps 395; and it is admitted that the said defendants have not, and had not at the institution of-this suit, constructed or located -their .road from the Ohio river, by way of and through Hagerstown and Boonsborough, to the track of said road at-Harper’s Ferry, as the same existed at the time of the passage of the said .act of 1835, chap-. 395; but, on the contrary, had at the institution of this suit finally located, and ■ are, were then, and are now constructing their said road' by a different route, ánd -without the limits of Washington county, within which the said Hagerstown and Boonsborough are situated. It is admitted that the' said Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, in general meeting of the said corporation, did accept, assent, and agree'to the several provisions of die said act of 1835, chap. 395, and did duly communicate their said approval, assent,, and agreement, under their corporate seal and the signature of their president, to, the governor of this state, in the manner and within the time prescribed by the said act; which approval, assent, and agreement, together with the report of the engineer of the said railroad company, which was required by the said act t<?'accompany the same, were as follows, viz.
    (The statement then set out all these documents in extenso. The engineer framed his estimates for a road to Pittsburg which would cost $6,681,468. That part of it passing through Washington county is thus described. “ The route departs from the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad at the mouth of the Little Catoc.tin, ascends that stream to the eastern base .of the Blue Ridge or South mountain, and thence continues to ascend along its slope to a depression in its cresty called 1 Crampton’s Gapthence passing through the mountain by a tunnel of4500 feet in length, it descends into ‘Pleasant -Valley,’ lying between the South mountain and the Elk mountain, and proceeds along the western base of the former, to and through the town of Boonsborough; thence to a- point near the village of Funkstawn; and' thence across the Antietám creek, above the Turnpike bridge, to the borough of Hagerstown; thence through the streets of-that town, and over Salesbury ridge, to and across the Conocochegue creek, about two miles north of Williamsport; thence” &c., &c.')
    “It is also admitted, that after this suit was instituted for the pur-Íiose of recovering the said forfeiture of a million of dollars, the egislature of Maryland, on the 10th day of March, 1841, passed the act of December session 1840, chap.. 260, repealing the said 5th section of the said act of 1835, chap. 395, as far as relates to the said forfeiture, of a million of dollars, and releasing the said defend- ■ ants from the said forfeiture, and every part thereof, and directing any suit instituted to recover the same to be discontinued, and to have no effect. It is also admitted, that the said repealing act of 1840, chap; 260, was passed upon the following memorial of the said defendants to the legislature, and that at the time of passing the same there was then before the legislature a counter-memorial . upon the said ■ subject from the said commissioners' of .Washington-county, which' memorial and- counter-memorial, it is. agreed, were as follows, to wit:”
    (These documents are too long to be inserted.)
    “It is further admitted and agreed, that the several acts of Assembly herein particularly referred to, as well as any other acts or resolutions of the General Assembly of Maryland, that either party may deem applicable in the argument of this case, either in the County-Court, or Court of Appeals,- or Supreme Court of the United States, should 'the case be hereafter carried, by either' party to-said courts, or either of them,, shall be read from the printed statute-books, and have the sainé effect, and operation in the case, as if duly authenticated copies théreof were made a part-of these statements.
    “ It is further agreed that all errors of pleading and of form in any part of the. proceedings of either party in this case are waived ; it being the object and understanding of the parties- that the matters of right in controversy between .them shall be fairly and fully presented to all or either of the said courts, in which the same máy be pending, and that either of the said parties shall have his pleading and proceedings considered as being as perfect as they could be made to give him the benefit of the case here stated. It is admitted that this'suit was the only suit ever brought by the said commis? sioners, or at their instance, to recover the Raid forfeiture of a million of dollars, and was pending whén the said act of 1835,. chap. 395, was passed. Upon this statement it is further, agreed that, if the court sliall be of opinion that this action could not be maintained if the said repealing act.of 1840, chap. 260, had. not been passed, or that the-operation and effect,of that repealing act is to release the said forfeiture of $1,000,000, and to • discontinue and put an end to this, suit, then judgment to be entered for the defendants, otherwise such judgment is to be entered for the plaintiffs as the court may think right and proper. It is further agreed that the county court -shall enter judgment pro forma, for the defendants. The plaintiff to have the same right to take up the case, by appeal. or writ of error, to the court of appeals, or ultimately to the Supreme Court of the United States, as if the judgment in -the county court had been rendered upon demurrer,-or upon a bill of exceptions . taken in due and legal form upon the facts herein before agreed upon.”
    Upon this statement of facts the court of.Frederick county gave judgment for the defendant, and the case being carried to the Court of Appeals, the judgment below was affirmed.
    The writ of error was brought to review this judgment.

      Jervis Spencer and Sergeant for the plaintiff m error.

      JYelson (attorney-general) and Johnson for defendants.
    Spencer, for the plaintiff in error, made the following points .: •
    1. That the act of 1835 is a contract.
    2. That Washington county is a party to that contract.
    3. That the forfeiture is in no sense a penalty.
    1st. It is hot for any criminal or prohibited a.ct amounting to a public offence. .
    2d. It is not introduced in terrorem, but is a sum to be paid For using the license given by the act as a compensation to the injured-party.
    4. That, by the use of the license by the company, Washington county acquired a vested right in the sum stipulated to be paid. >•
    5. That to take away-this ■ right from Washington county would be inequitable, unju.st, and contrary to the first principles of the social compact; and therefore the act ought to be so construed, if possible, as to avoid that result; and it may be so construed by confining its operation, to whatever right the state had, if any. The state might release her own power over the matter, leaving in Torce the right of the. county.
    6. If otherwise construed, it is repugnant to the state constitution, and void.
    7. In the same view, it is repugnant to the constitution of the United States,' and void.
    And then said—
    This suit is brought in the name of the state of Maryland, to recover $1,000,000, which is claimed by the county, under the provisions of the 5th section of the. act of the legislature of (Maryland, at the session of 1835, chap: 395, which are substantially set forth in the declaration.
    It is maintained, to support, the claim of the plaintiff, that the whole act constituted a contract between the state and company; and the 5rh section a part of-said contract, in which the county is a. party beneficially interested.
    The provisions of the 1st section of the act are in the very terms of contráct, and embrace the 5th section as well as the rest of the law: “ If the railroad company shall approve, assent, and agree to the several provisions-of this act so far as they are applicable to said corporation,” &c. The approval, assent, and agreement of the company were given as provided for by the act, and that agreement gave vitality to the whole law.- The state offered, and the company accepted the oiler, on mutual considerations. It was the congre-galio mentium, which is of the very essence of contract.
    . The case stated shows that at the time of commencing this suit, the road-had been located out of the limits of Washington county, and that, under’ the .law, the company was liable to pay the money.
    But the defence- relies on the act of 1840, chap.' 260, which undertakes to repeal the provision of the. act of 1835, chap. 395, under which the claim is asserted; and the question is, whether that act.of 1840 violatés the 10th section of the Constitution of the United States.
    The first aspect in which the question is to be examined, is, whether the 5th section is part of a contract at all, or only criminal penalty, which it is maintained to be by the defendant. We maintain that it is not only contract, but that it could, have no operation as criminal penalty.
    What is a contract? Chitty on Contracts, 1, &c.; Canal Company v. Railroad Company, 4 Gill & Johns. 128,&c.
    The Court 'óf Appeals say, we must look to concurrent legislation, to find the meaning of-the. 5th section;, and refer to the actof-1840, chap. 260,. which uses the term “penalty.” But could, the act of 1840, after the suit was brought, alter the character of the thing ? If it was contract when the suit was brought, the act of 1840 could not make it criminal, penalty.. • The legislature could not stretch the shoe or contract it, and make the previous law'mean one thing or another, as they might chor se to .call it, and when they had a manifest motive in endeavouring to'.alter'its' character.
    Concurrent legislation, prior to the act of 1840, proves that the legislature understood it as contract, and nothing, else. The act of 1826, chap.-123, sect. .14, which was the original charter, authorized the compány to '«iter upon any lands for a location* Afterwards, by the act .of 1827, chap. 104, sect. 3, the legislature thought proper to restrict the company to a location within Frederick anebWash-ington counties, but did they do it by a criminal enactment? No, They knew they could not do that, and they entered -into a distinct contract for'the purpose! Stress is laid hy the other side on the fact that the terms of contract are used in the same section of the' act of 1827, which makes' the restriction; and the inference is deduced that if the 5th section" of the act of 1835 were intended, to be contract, the terms of contract would have been used in that section' also. But the important fact is entirely, overlooked, that' the words ' of contract, in the first section of the act of 1835, embrace the whole .act; whereas; in the act of 1827, there were no such general words of assent and agreement' to the whole act, but they applied only to the respective sections.
    The Court of Appeals refer to the 9th section of the act of 1835, and-say . that, inasmuch, as'1 a special contract was required to be made by that section,’therefore the legislature could not have intended' to make the 5th section contract. This construction cannot be justified. It would involve the construction that many of the most ■essential stipulations of the company are not. its contract, because the particular ..sections in which they occur do not require other special contracts with reference to the same. The 9th section required a -distinct contract, in order that if the state' should' ever have occasion to sue on it,'the suit should not be embarrassed by all the Various matter embraced by the law. It was an arrangement of convenience. When the company agreed to the law, and accepted the same, it was under contract to fulfil the 9th section by an additional contract. That section was a contract, to be performed by entering into another contract; and'it was as much a contract as the subse- ■ quent contract would be such, after it should be entered into.
    ■ There are thousands of instances of this, where contracts are in part, ;or the whole; to be performed by entering into other contracts.
    . The right to choose a location was a vested franchise of the company, its property, which the .legislature of Maryland had no right to interfere with by a criminal enactment. . Canal Company,n. Railroad Company, 4 Gill. & John?.- R. 144. The obligation to go through Frederick and Washington counties,, under the act of 1827, was released by the act of 1831, chap. 251;. and the company stood un-trammelled, without any power.of control by the legislature. Their , contract or agreement was absolutely essential to .bind them down to any particular Ideation. The 5th section, in any other sense but contract, is á dead lettér.
    It has been asked, suppose the act had said' that the company should be liable to Washington county in damages, would that be .contract? And again, that if the,road should leave the prescribed, points it should be á misdemeanor, would that be contract? It is submitted, that it would be, iii both eases. The courts have said, . in die authorities I have read, that the right to choose a location is the property of the company, and it could be liable neither for da- . mages nor a misdemeanor, for using properly its own property. . It might contract to use its property’in-a certain way, and if nothing be' said about damages for the breach, a liability for.such damages’ is implied in every contract. To declare-, in express terms, what is implied in every contract, certainly would not vitiate it. private - individuals,could not contract that the act of one should be ¿ .misdemeanor, buC a misdemeanor is an offence, against the state,, and surely a party who has an absolute right'to do a thing, independent of legislative control, may contract with the . state that he 'will not do ' it,' and if he does, it shall be a misdemeanor. , A state may do many things,'in the way of contract, that an individual cannot do,- for there is 'no public policy to restrain her, nothing but the written Constitution.
    There is another kind-of penalty which is the penalty of a contract. ' This is not such a case, but ft is the actual contract, of the party to pay the million, in the event which has happened.. 2 Pothier on Obligations, 86, &c.; 93, 94, 95, 96; 7 Wheat. 18.
    Washington county had. a good subsisting intérest-in.the contract. If any consideration were necessary to sustain, the úse, it amply exists in the moral obligation which the state owes to the people to protect their interest an.d nourish their prosperity.. The Court of Appeals say,, that, “as a county, she stands to the state .in the'relation of a child to a párent;’-’ and this would furnish consideration - enough. Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 151; Lloyd v. Spillét, 2 Atk. 149. _ - ' .
    _ But no question of consideration can arise here, as the acceptance and contract of the company is under the solemnities of a seal, which implies a. consideration.
    No consideration is necessary. Dartmouth Coílege case, 4 Wheat.. 698; 3 Story on the Const. 257,258; Camigan u. Morrison, 2 Met-calf, 396; Willis on Trustees, 216; Cooker v '. Child, 2 Levinz, 74; 4 Kent’s Com. 307, and cases there referred, to.
    The sovereigfity of a state is above the restrictions of the common law and' the statutory law. They must all yield to the -sovereign will; and what would be necessary to the contract .or grant of an' individual would by no means be necessary to the" same things of a state.
    Even though Washington county had been ignorant of the provision in the law, made for her benefit at the time of its passage, she could have availed herself of it; and she did affirm it when she-instituted the suit, if not before. 4 ^Kent’s Com. 307, &c.
    The use declared in the-act of 1835 ought to be as sacred as any other right of ^property. It is property to the county. It is vested under the law of the state. It vests undér the same sanction which secures to a citizen his estate. It is an interest in a contract, vested under the sacred sanction of the law, and is inviolate under the Constitution. . .
    . The county enjoyed -great advantages before the construction of this road-. One of the greatest thoroughfares in -the country, (the • great national road)' passed for fifty'-miles through her territory. Twenty four-horse stage-coaches, filled with passengers,.daily passed over the road, and it was constantly, lined with immense wagon-'teams, travelling to and from the greát west. All these people and horses had to be fed. '. It made a'most profitable market for our farmers. Houses were built all along the road, to accommodate the cus--tom. ■ It is now all gone. The farmers lose the profits of their provender and marketing; • the whole country feels the depression; and the house's which were a few years ago comfortable inns, and profitable'to their proprietors, are going to decay, a dead loss. The mil- . lion we seek to recover can never indemnify the county for the injury ', she has sustained.
    Maryland was about to apply large sums to the construction of this great workj (the Baltimore and. Ohio Railroad;) the means were to be obtained in part from Washington county; and could any more cruel injustice be conceived than for the state to appropriate the .money of the. people, and pledge the. property of Washington county, for the construction of a work which would take from the county all-the benefits it enjoyed? Surely every principle of justice-and moral cluty required'that the state should protect the county;', and the stipulations'of the 5th séction were no doubt intended for that.
    The state was a mere trustee after the contract was made, and could not deny to the county the right' to use her name in bringing , the suit.. Payne v. Rogers, 1 Dpug. 407; Carter & Moore v. Insurance Company, 1 Johns. Ch. R. 463 ; Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 89; Kiersteád v. The; State, 1 Gill & Johns. 246.
    It has been argued, by the • other side, that the state has entire control over the corporation of Washington county, and can destroy it at her pleasure. We admit that the legislature has absolute control-of the politicalpowers of a -political corporation, to amend, or modify,, or repeal them. But as long as the corporate organization continues, the county is as capable of taking .as a natural person, and its contracts are equally protected. The act of 1829, chap. 21, sect. 3, incorporates the commissioners of Washington county, and enables- them, to hold all kinds of estate. The Constitution made no distinction in the classes of contracts whose obligation was forbidden to be ■ impaired, but. protects those made by corporations equally with' those .made-, by individuals. Green v. Biddle, 5 Pet. Cond. Rep. 390.
    The right of a legislature -over charters does not imply-a right to •the property held under those charters. 9.Cranch, 335; 16 Mass. Rep. 84,-85, 86 ; 2 Kent’s Com. 275, 3d ed.
    ’ Nelson, attorney-general, for defendants in error, referred- to and commented on the various laws of Maryland respecting the railroad company, and said, that the only question in the case was, whether the act of 1840 was.valid and legitimate. Upon this point three propositions could be-stated—
    1. The proviso in the-preceding act, which declares a forfeiture, .imposes it as a penalty.
    ' 2. If it be a penalty, the legislature had a right to remit it, and did remit it. ,
    3. If the stipulation in the 5th section of: the act of 1835 be a contract in its natvire, thg legislature was competent to release it, and did so. '
    1. Is the proviso a contract or mere penalty ? This must be answered by a reference to the terms of the act, to the circumstances under which it was passed, and to acts in pari materia. Let us examine each. The 5th section prescribes, a duty to be performed by the railroad company. It says, “ It shall be the duty of the company,” and -the pérformance of it is sanctioned by a forfeiture. The .language is not that they shall pay if they fail to comply, but that they shall forfeit $1,000,000. What is a forfeiture ? It is a penally. ' imposed by a superior power for an omission to perform a duly; The terms of the act, therefore, mean a penalty by denouncing forfeiture as a punishment. .The act-of 1837* 4th section; contained an offer to -the company,, which was not accepted ; but -its' language-is, that it -shall-." not be construed to repeal the forfeiture to Washington county.” The-act of 1840 contains the same idea; it remits a forfeiture. .Tn the act of 1.835, different expressions are used in the 7th and 9th sections, where it is declared that “the company shall bind ■ itself by an instrument to. pay,” &c.- •; and in the 14th section, where the duty of providing transportation Is imposed upon the -company, they are made liable, to: an. action by any party aggrieved. In the ,5th' section, it is not the less a penalty because the amount is ascertained. If the legislature meant the obligation in the 5th section to rest on contract, can it- be accounted for that they did not use the appropriate terms, when they did so in the 7th and 9th sections? It has.'been said, that the railroad company assented to the act, and that it thus became a contract. But the assent ■was given to the áct ás it stood, with thé penalty in it. Assent to it did not change a penalty into a contract. The'act of Virginia contained penalties for wronging persons, but by' accepting this 'the company left- it optional with the proper authorities of Virginia ■whether to enforce the penalties.or not.
    . 2. If it be a penalty, has the legislature the power to.release it? Whether injustice was or was not done -to-Washington county, was a question for thé legislature-to decide, but not for this courtj which, must Jus dicere, and not jus dare." In England, the king cannot re- , mit a penalty where private rights are involved^ but parliament can. 2 Black.' Com. 437, 446; 1 Wm. Black. Rep. 451.
    ■ Where a forfeiture is imposed by act of. Congress, arid the law expires, the forfeiture cannot be enforced, although there was a judgment below. ' 1 Cranchj"l04; 5 Cránch, 281 ; 6 Cranch, 203, 329.
    Decisions in the different' states are'- uniform on this • poipt. 2 McCord,- 1; 2 Bailey-, 584; 1 Missouri, 169'; Breeze, 115; 1 Murphy: 465; 1 Stew. -Ala. Rep’. 346; Allen, N. H. 61; 4 Yeates, 392.
    It is clear, therefore, that if this provision is in the nature of-a penalty, the law of 1840 is valid. ,.
    3. Suppose, however, that the stipulation is in .the nature of a contract, had the legislature power to release it ?" • The act of 1840 professes to release it, whether it be contract or penalty. It is not denied that a state may make a contract, and if,,she does, that she cannot break it. The Constitution intended to protect private property, whether of corporations or individuals. Is Washington county such a'person ? - We say, that she can have-no'interest se--paraté froiri the state. She is a compofient part of Maryland, and is' separate only for the purpose of. executing the sovereign'will of •the state. The distinction between public and private corporations must exist in such “a case, if it exists at all; In 1804 the Levy Court was incorporated, the, justices of which were appointed by the state, but they had no. power to levy taxes, nor any other power, except that which was conferred upon, them bylaw. In 1839, commissioners were authorized by law to' supersede the Levy Court, with the same powers. They cannot be the cestui-.que use of the state, for they had no authority to accept such a use, and could not appro-Ííriate the money, if it were given to them, The state could pass a aw, directing the puipose for which it should be expended, and even order it to be paid over to the railroad company. Maryland can abolish Washington county. Suppose, that on the day after the forfeiture the county were to be. annihilated or broken up, and partitioned amongst the adjacent counties, what would be done with the funds- on hand ? It would be for the state"to prescribe their direction.. . 9 Cranch, 43, 52, 292.
    If the distinction between public and private corporations be that interests are protected, all are protected, because there can'be no .litigation without interests. 4 Wheat. 629, 630, 659, 660,693, 694; 13 Wend. 325, 334,. 337.
    Was a right of action such, a property as,is protected? The penalty was' never reduced into possession, and the state had a right to defeat die remedy when it was sought by a suit in its own name. All the points in mis case are covered by 1 Missouri Rep. 169. Counties are public corporations, and can be .changed or modified at the pleasure of the state. Breese, (Illinois Rep.) 115.
    In the case of the town of.Pawlet private interests were involved; it was.not intended to throw the shield of protection over public property. The public may do what they please with their own. A legislature cannot repeal a charter, and take the property of individuals but if you refuse to it the power .to control- public funds, you strip it of a useful and legal authority.
    Jt;Jphnson-argued upon the same side, but of his argument the Reporter has no notes.

      Sergeant, for plaintiff in error,
    in conclusion, stated thé tacts in the case, referred to the acts of Assembly, and then argued that the proviso in the act of, 1835 was not a;penalty. 'There was añ alterna-? tive, an option' given to the railroad company, either to make the road as directed* or to.pav the money. The nature of the proviso was perfectly understood by the legislature. The previous part of the law enacted, that the company should pass.through three towns. Had the- law stopped there, the obligation would have been complete, under the penalty, as it is said by the other side, of forfeiting their charter. But the proviso makes a difference. If the company choose to pay the money, théy may decline to obey the enacting clause. The difference between a law and an. agreement is, that the one is binding absolutely, and the other not without an assent. But here the company were required to signify their assent to the law, which shows that the legislature thought they were making a contract. When a state becomes a contracting party, she acts with no higher power than an individual, except that sometimes persons are made able to contract who would be unable, without the assistance of legislation. A confusion arises in some cases from the same power making laws and contracts; and the different mode of action must.be steadily kept in view. A treaty is binding, and yet there is no exercise of a legislative power. In the'case before us, the company were not bound to adopt any certain route. All that the legislature said was, that if they did not agree to pass through the three towns, they should hot have the subscription of $3,000,000. It makes no difference, in a legal point' of view-, whether it,was or. was not difficult to construct the road along that route. This circumstance did not alter the contract. If they had -agreed to pay the $1,000,000, the legislature could not haVe compelled them to pass through the towns.
    •The act of 1840 does not declare what that of 1835 was, but professes to annihilate it. • But the legislature cannot do this. They cannot even construe the. law, which'is the peculiar próVince of a court. There is nothing in this disability derogatory to the dignity of Maryland, because it is common to all the states. Courts may look at acts which are in pari materia, but the' examination is only to guide their judgment, and not because the .legislature has a right to construe a contract already-made. When the Constitution of the United States protects ' contracts, it means that they shall, be defined and construed according to received and settled principles; there is no exception of implied contracts or those made by states or corporations, public or private. Public, corporations have a right to m'ake contracts and to sue, and there-is no exception of a penalty by contract, such, for example, as a bond. This court has always acted up to the letter and spirit of the Constitution,' and it is a subject of -rejoicing that its opinions have found their way into the hearts of the people, and become guides of action. ■, In a convention of the people of Pennsylvania,'which met not long.since,' an argument addressed to that body,, founded on the decisions of this court, settled a question which had been miich-debated. It isa principle that contracts must be interpreted by the judiciary, and this is equally true of contracts made by individuals or states. All . the incidents of contracts are protected also, and' ho equivocation or subterfuge will be. allowed. The only distinction which can be made amongst penalties, is regarding'crimes and contracts. No one can contract-to commit a crime; it would be void. If the act of 1840 impairs the obligation of a contract, it ismugatory. Between individuals, this would be considered a'-case of- contract, and there is in the law no exercise of the legislative power, which would have been'the case if Washington county, by it, had been empowered to make a contract. • But this was not necessary. The state could contract, undoubtedly, and • so could the railroad company, and a third party is introduced with the consent of both. A charter is a contract; but. provisions are sometimes introduced into it which are not matters of contract. 4 Wheaton,' 235. In the present case, the acceptance completed, the contract. If you strike out of the law the words, “ for the use of Washington county,” there is nothing to show what was' to be done with the money. But when these were inserted, it prevented' the state, from claiming it for herself'; if she had done so, me railroad company would have been justified.in refusing- to pay. Here then were two parties, each capable of contracting; and as to the capacity of Washington county so.to do, it was held, in the.-case of Terrett and Taylor, .that .the reedgnition of a power to contract is equivalent to a fresh' grant of power.-- A bond between A. and B., for the use of C., admits C.’s interest, and suit must be brought in the name of the obligee. When a bond is assigned, there .is an implied engagement that the assignor will do nothing to impair the interest of the other party, A cestui que tnist has, in equity i á control of the fund. Black v. Zacharie, decided at this term.
    The act of 1835 is, in fact, a stipulation for a license to depart from a prescribed route. It has. been said, by the other side, that it is a penalty, that the legislature can reléase it, and that if it is a contract, the legislature can annul it. If it is a penalty, and the state has released it, the question cannot come up here. We have no desire to say any thing as to the power of a state over criminal-penalties, such as that in 10 Wheaton. It is said that Washington county was not a party to the contract. ' But it seems to be conceded that if' it were not for the act of 1840, there would be no opposition to the claim. There was* a time then, when .Washington county had an interest, and this remained at.the institution of the suit. If the staté of Maryland were to receive the money as the plaintiff in the cause, perhaps we could not legally coerce her to pay it to Washington county. But she would be morally bound to do so. ' The moment that the railroad company determined not to pass through the-three towns,-Washington county, acquired a right. The trustee and the party bound have concurred to destroy the contract,- and it -is only m consequence of this, that Washington county does not stand as it did at first. It has been said that the legislature could take away the remedy by which the contract was tp. bé enforced. But the decisions of this court are uniform, that a legislature cannot take away a1 right, under pretence' of affecting the. remedy. The last case upon this point is Bronson v. Kenzié, 1 Howard, 311.
    If the law impairs a remedy, or varies a contract- a hair’s breadth, it is void; and it malees no difference whether it is a general. or a special law. In the case before us, the plaintiffs are put in a worse situation than they were before, and the same thing is intended to be accomplished as if 'alawhad been passed forbidding'them to bring a suit.
    It is said that Washington county is.a public municipal corporation, artd therefore within the control of the legislature. But in the act.of 1835,-.there was no reservation of power Upon this ground. ' It may be tW the votes of some few persons were required to pass the vlaw, who would not have voted for it if any such reservation had been made. Men cannot be such general philanthropists as to' give Up the interests of their own immediate neighbourhood. Suppose Washington county to have said, if. you take away the road from us, you must make compensation. In such case,, the law would not have been passed with a reservation in it like the one just spoken of. And if it be a contract, it is violated for the benefit of the railroad company. The argument on the other side goes to 'the extent that- every contract, made by a public, municipal corporation, is . beyond the pale of the Constitution. There is .no decision of this court that such a charter and property, can be taken away. One of the complaints in the Declaration of Independence is, that charters were taken away; and this practice, in part; produced a revolution in England. By tl-Is argument', they may all be swept off; and such corporations may, moreover, be asked what they are going to do with their property. • It has been'said,' that supposing it to be a contract, it cannot inure to the benefit of Washington county." But an implication cannot be made contrary to what is expressed, or what is just and right. . What Washington CQunty is going to dp' with the money is of no concern "to the railroad company, the true defendant in this case. It may feducate .the poor with it; it may pay-debts,.'.or it may erect a monument to that glorious clause in the Constitution which enables it to assert its rights in this court.
   Mr. Chief Justice TANEY

delivered the opinion of the court.

■The question brought before the court by this writ of error depends upon the construction and effect of an get of the General Assembly of Maryland, passed at December session, 1835, entitled “ An act for the promotion of internal improvement.”

The original' charter.of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company authorized it'to.construct a railroad from Baltimore to some.suitable point an the Ohio river, without prescribing any particular route over ■which the road was to pass; leaving the. whole line to the judgment ■and discretion of the company. But by the act above mentioned the state proposed to. subscribe $3,000,000 to its capital stock, provided the company assented to the provisions of that law; and, among Other provisions;^, this acti of.Assembly required the road to pass through Cumberland, Hagerstown, and Boonsborough; and provided also that, if the road was not located in the manner therein pointed out-, the company “should forfeit $1,000,000,fo the state for'the use of Washington county.”

The towns of Cumberland, Hagerstown, and Boonsbórough,- are all situated in Maryland; the first in Alleghany county and the two latter in Washington.

. This láw was assented to by the company, and became obligatory upon it, and the sum proposed was subscribed by the. state; but for reasons which it is not necessary here to mention, the company did not locate the road through Hagerstown or Boonsborough, nor pqss through any part of Washington, on its way from -Harper’s Ferry to Cumberland, to which point'the road has been made .; and this suit was thereupon brought,, at the instance of the commissioners of Washington- county, in the name- of the state, for the use of the county, to-recover the $1,000,000 above mentioned. After the suit had bée'n instituted, the' state, at December session, 1840, passed a law repealing so much of the act of 1835'as required the company to locate the road through Hagerstown and Boonsborough,-and remitting the forfeiture of the $1,000,000, and directing any suit instituted to recover it to be discontinued.

The commissioners of Washington, county, however, at whose instance the action wás brought, insisted that the money was due to the county by contract, and mat it was not in the power of the state to release it; and upon that ground continued to prosecute.the suit; and the Court of Appeals of the state, having decided against the claim,- the case is brought here by writ of error;

■■ Undoubtedly, if the money was due to Washington county by .contract, the'act of 1840, which altogether takes away the remedy, would be inoperative and void. But even if the provisions upon this subject in the act of 1835 could be regarded as a contract with the railroad company",'it would be difficult to maintain .that the county was a party to 'the agreement or that it acquired any private or separate interesbunder it, distinct from that of the state. It was certainly at that time the policy of the state to require the road to pass through the places mentioned in the law; and if it failed to- do so, to appropriate tlie -forfeiture, to the use of the county. But it cannot be- presumed that in making this appropriation the legislature was governed merely by a desire to advance the interest of a single county, without any reference to the interests of the rest of the state. On the contrary, the whole scope of the law shows that it was legislating for state purposes, making large appropriations for improvements in different places; and if die policy which at that time induced it to prescribe a particular course for the road,'and in' case it was not followed to exact from the company $1,000,000 .and devote it to the use of Washington county, was afterwards discovered tobe a mistaken one,-and likely'to prove highly'injurious to the rest of the state, it had unquestionably the power to change its policy, and allow the company, to pursue a different course, and to release it from its obligations both as to the direction of the road and the payment of the money. ' For, ingoing this,, it was dealing altogether with matters of public concern, and interfered-with’ no. private right; for neither the commissioners, nor the county, nor ■ any one of its citizens, had acquired any separate or private interest which could be maintained in-a court, of justice.

. As relates to the commissioners, they are not named m the law, nor were they inymy shapé parties to the contract supposed to have been made, nor is*the money declared to be for' their use. They, are a corporate body, it is true, and. the members who compose it are chosen by the people of the county. But like similar corporations in every other county in the state, it is created for the purposes of government, and clothed with certain defined-and limited powers to enable it to perform those public duties which, according to the laws and usages of the state, are always intrusted to local county 1 tribunals. Formerly they were appointed in all of the counties annually, by the executive department, of the government, and were then denominated the Levy Court of the county; • and in some-of the counties they aré still constituted in that manner, the -legislature commonly retaining the old mode of. appointment, or directing an election by the péople, as the citizens of any particular county may prefer. But, however chosen, theii powérs and duties depend upon , the will of the legislature, ,and are modified and changed, and the manner of their appointment regulated at the pleasure of the’ state. And if this money had been received from the railroad company,' the commissioners, in théir corporate capacity, would hot have beén entitled to it, and eóuld neither have received nor disbursed it, nor. have ’ directed the' uses to which it should be applied, unless the state had seen fit to enlarge, their powers and commit the money to their care; If it was applied to the use of the county,- it did not by any means follow that it was to pass through -their hands,1 arid the mode of application would have depended altogether upon the will of the state. This corporation, therefore,, certainly had no private corporate interest .in the money, and Indeed the suit is not eritered fór their use, but for the usé of- the county. The claim for the county is equally untenable with that of the commissioners. Thé several counties are- nothing more than certain portions of territory into which the state is divided for the more convenient-exercise-of the powers of government.. .They form together one-political body - in which the sovereignty resides.. And in passing the law of 1835, the people of Washington county did -not and could not act as a community having separate and distinct interests of their own, but •as a portion of the sovereignty; their delegates to the General Assembly acting in conjunction with the delegates'from every other part of the state, and legislating for public and state purposes, and the validity of the law did not- depend upon their assent to its provisions,' as it would have been- equally obligatory upon them,-if every one of-'their delegates had voted against it, provided -it was passed by a constitutional majority of the General Assembly. And whether the money was' due by contract or otherwise, it must, if received and applied to the use of. the county, have yet been received and -applied- by the state to public purposes in the county. For the county'has no separate and corporate, organization by which it could receive the money or designate agents to receive it or give an acquittance to the railroad company, or determine -upon the uses to which it should be appropriated. We have already seen that .the corporation of commissioners of the county had no such power ; and certainly-no citizen of the county had any private and •individual property in it. It must have rested with the state so to dispose of it as to promote the -general interest of the whole community, by the advantages it bestowed upon this particular portion of it.

. Indeed) if this money is to be considered as due, either to the commissioners or-to the county, by contract' with the railroad company, so that it may be recovered in this suit, in opposition to the will and policy of the state, it would follow necessarily that it might have ■been released by the party entitled, even if the state had desired to enforce it. -And if the state hád adhered to the policy of .the act'in question, and .supposed it to be for the public interest to insist that the road should pass along the line prescribed in that law, or the company be compelled to pay the million of' dollars, according to the constru’c'tion now contended for, the commissioners or the county might have counteracted the wishes of the state, and, by releasing the- company from the obligation to pay this money, allowed them to locate-the' road qpon any other line. And if the construction of the plaintiff in error be right, the legislature of Maryland, in a case where the whole people of the state had become so deeply concerned by the large amount subscribed to the capital stock of the road, that its success or failure' must seriously affect the interests of every part of the state; and where the improvement was regarded as of die highest importance to its general commercial prosperity; it deliberately deprived itself of the power of exercising any future control over it, and left it to a single county or county corporation to decide upon the course of the road, and either to insist on the line prescribed by the legislature, or to release the company from the obligation to pursue it, without regard to the wishes or interest of the rest of the state. Whether the million -of dollars was reserved bj contract, or inflicted as a penalty, such a construction of the law cannot be maintained.

■ But we think it very clear that this was a penalty, to be infficted if the railroad company did not follow the line pointed out in die law. It is true,' that the act of 1835, which changed in some important particulars the obligations' imposed by the original charter, would npt have been binding on the company without its consent; and the'1st section, therefore, contains a provision requiring the consent of the company,in order to give it validity.. And when the • company assented to the proposed alterations in their charter, ¿nd ■agreed to. accept the law, it undoubtedly became a contract between it and the state; but it was a contract in no other sense than every-charter, whether original | or supplementary, is a contract, where rights of private'property are acquired under it. Yet, although this supplementary charter was á contract in this sense of the'term, it does.not by any means follow that'the legislature might not, in the charter,, impose duties and obligations 'upon the company, and inflict penalties-and forfeitures as a punishment-for its disobedience, which might be enforced against it in' the form of criminal proceedings, and 'as the punishment of an offence- against the law. . Such penal provisions are to be found in many charters-, and we are not aware of any- case in which they have been held to be mere matters of contract. \ -And in the case before.Jh’e court,.the language of the . law requiring the company to locate the road so as to pass through the places therein mentioned, is certainly not the language of contract, but is evidently mandatory, arid in the exercise of. législative power; and it is made the duty of the company, in.case they assent, to the provisions of that law,.-to pasS through Cumberland, Ha-gerstown, and Boonsbbrough; and if they fail to do so, the fine of $1,000,000, is imposed- as a punishment for the offence. And a provisión, as in this case, that the party shall forfeit a particular sum, in case he does mot- perform an act required by law, has always, in the construction of-statutes, been-regarded not as a,contract with the delinquent party, but as'the punishment.for an offence. Undoubtedly, in .the ease of individuals, the word forfeit is construed to be the language of contract, becáuse contract is the only mode in which one person, .can become liable to pay-a penalty to another for a breach of duty, or the' failure to 'perform an obligation. In légis- ■ lative proceedings, however, the construction, is otherwise,' and a •forfeiture is always to be regarded as a punishment inflicted for a violation of somé duty enjoined upon the party by law; and such, very clearly, is the meaning of the word in the act in question.

In this aspect of the case, and upon this construction of the act of Assembly, we do not understand that the right of the state to release it is disputed. Certainly the power to do so is too well settled to admit of controversy. The repeal of thé law imposing the penalty, is of itself a remission. 1 Cranch, 104; 5 Cranch, 281; 6 Cranch, 203, 329. And in the cáse of the United States v. Morris, 10 Wheat. 287, this court held, that Congress had clearly the power to authorize the secretary of the Treasury to remit any penalty or.,, forfeiture incurred by the breach of the revenue laws, either before or after judgment; and if remitted'before the money was actually paid, it embraced the shares given by law in such cases to the officers .of the customs, as-well as the share of the United-States* ■ The right to re- . mit a penalty like this stands upon the same principies; ■

We are, therefore, of opinion, that the law of 1840, herein before • mentioned, did not impair the obligation of a contract', and that the ■ judgment of the Court of Appeals of Maryland must be affirmed.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    James Stimpson, Plaintiff in Error, v. West Chester Railroad Company.
    The 38th. rule of court forbids the insertion of the whole of the charge of the court to the jury in a general bill of exceptions, but requires that the part excepted to shall be specifically set out.
    This court has not the power to correct any errors or omissions which may have been made in the’Circuit Court in framing the exception; nor can it regard any part of the charge as the subject-matter of revision, unless the judge's, or one of them, certify under his seal, that it was excepted to at the trial.
    If the omission of a part of the charge, which was in fact embraced in the exception, is a mere clerical error, the party will'be entitled to a certiorari, upon producing'a copy of the. exception, properly certified.
    But in no case can the exception certified under the seals of the judges of the Circuit-Court be altered or amended.
    . A suggestion was made, in this case, of diminution in the record, and a motion for a certiorari to bring up the charge which the court delivered to the jury on the trial of the 'cause in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
   Mr. Chief Justice TANEY

delivered the following opinion of the court. -

The plaintiff in error in this case suggests that there is diminution in the record, in omitting the charge to the jury which was delivered at the trial by the Circuit Court, and moves for a certiorari, that it may be set out at length, and appended to the record.

So much .of the -charge of the court as was ei’cepted to-.at the trial, is .inserted in the record as it now stands; and by the 38th rulé of this court, adopted at January Term, 1832, it was ordered, that thereafter the. judges of the Circuit and District Courts do not allow any bill of exceptions, which shall contain the charge of the court at large to the jury, in trials at common law, upon any general exception to the whole of such charge. But that the party excepting.be' required’to state distinctly the several matters in law, in such charge, -to which he excepts; and that such matters of law, and those only, be inserted in the bill of exceptions, and allowed : by the court.” , .

. The record now before us contains as much of the charge as is authorized, by this rule, to be inserted in the exception, and the •motion for a certiorari must therefore be overruled.

J. R. Ingersoll afterwards filed, and read in open court, the following suggestion in writing, to wit:

In the printed record, a mere omission is made qf a portion of the manuscript charge. 1. After the reference to Evans v. Jordan, 9 Cranch, 201, (printed record, p. .30, near the bottom of the -p'age,) there are four and a half pages of manuscript, (pages 26, 27, 28, 29, 30.) 2. On page 27 of the manuscript are these words: “ It thus appears that the act of 1839 goes only one step beyond those of 1832 and 1836, and is a dead-letter, if it protects the person who has purchased, constructed, or used the machine invented,” &c.

A memorandum, endorsed by Judge Baldwin, “ Stimpson v. West Chester Railroad Company. Exceptions to the charge,” In this memorandum are found, the following words: “ 7 sect, act of-1839 Sfoes only one step beyond those of '1832 and. 1836, and- is dead etter so.far as protection against such subsequent use.”

3. On page 30 of the manuscript charge are these words : “ In the case before us, it-clearly appears that the defendants constructed their railroad with the plaintiff’s curves, in 1834, one. year or more before the plaintiff’s application for his renewed patent, consequently they may continue its use without liability tp the plaintiff.”'

The same, memorandum^ endorsed by Judge Baldwin, contains ■ these words: “ As defendants made railroad in 1834, they may continue use.”

' Thus it will be perceived, the very points objected to in writing:, and the writing received and admitted to be such by Judge Bald-win, are omitted in copying the charge at the clerk’s office at Philadelphia. The language of . the charge,-as written out, is somewhat more extended than that of' a memorandum hastily made while it was delivered, but it is, throughout, substantially, and in part,, litefally the same. ■

The “ important question” in the case was, the defendants’, right to use, after the date of the. second patent, the specific machine constructed and used by them before the date of that patent. This question, according to the printed record, is not decided at all, nor left to the jury,‘nor any result arrived at in, regard to it.

The whole charge is not wanted, but only those parts distinctly excepted to at the moment, and inadvertently- omitted by a copyist.

It is obvious, .besides, that the charge, or the fragment of a charge printed, is not only elliptical, but insensible. The judge says, (p. 30,) i£ Another important question,” &c., yet no question appears. The manuscript must be consulted in order to give-meaning or object to the phrase.

The counsel for the defendant in error would probably learn with some surprise, that this application has been refused. In the paper book which that counsel has caused to be printed, page 3, third paragraph, the 7th section of the act .of 1839 is quoted,’ and sup ported by points and references. All this is without object or origin ■in the printed record. The . source- of it is dried up by the omission of the copyist. So page 4 of that paper book, No. 6, under the act of 1839, &c.” These remarks are applicable only to the . omitted parts of the charge.

The counsel for plaintiff in error, who now moves for a certiorari, Was not present at the trial, but his colleague, who tried the cause, informs him that the judge undertook to put the whole charge on the record, and the concluding words along with it. Thus,

be 1. The wholé charge, under the promise of -the judge, ought to • a Dart of the record.

2. The omitted parts in the printed record are the essence arid substance of the case;- admitted by the judge to be such, and specifically excepted to at the moment.

- 3. The -whole, difficulty ., arises from a,. mere inadvertence of a clerk.

4. Extreme injustice will be done, if the clerical omission be not corrected.

• 5. Were the judge living, verbal explanations might be-given by him, büt not more-precise perhaps than the written endorsement or the memorandum of counsel.

Finally, the printed record shows that the judge put the case on two points

First, was the -second patent void ?

The judge decided that it is. .

Secondly, if the second patent were not void, then, can the plain- ■ tiff recover, when the specific machine used by the defendants was first made and used by them before the second patent was taken ' out ?

This second point, according, to the printed record, the judge states, but does not decide, or put in such shape as to let the jury, decide. His conclusion is omitted, while his premises are stated. And a correction of this is the subject of the certiorari. Mr. Inger-soll then moved the court for a writ of certiorari to be directed to the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, commanding them to certify forthwith whatever errors and Omissions shall be found.

Upon which motion, Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.

A motion was made at a former day of the present term for a certiorari to bring up the charge delivered by the Circuit Court at the trial, to be set out at length, and appended to the record. This motion was overruled for the Reason then stated by the court.

The motion has since been revived, and a copy of what purports to have been the charge of the court at length has been produced, in order to show that a material point in it has not been inserted in the exception, as brought up' in the record; and some memorandums in the handwriting of the late presiding judge óf the Circuit Court have also been laid before this court for the purpose of showing that an exception was reserved to the part of the charge above referred to.

In relation to the exception stated in the record, the court think it proper to say, that it contains a great'deal of argument which is ■ altogether out of place in an-exceptión, and contrary to the directions of-fhis court as given in the 38th rule; And it would appear,, from' the copy of the charge- produced in support of this motion, that while much of the argument of the Circuit Court has been improperly inserted, the. matter of. law which the argument was intended to' prove, and upon which the jury were instructed, is omitted. But this court has. not the power to correct any errors or omissions that may have been made in the Circuit Court in framing the exception; nor can we regard any part of the charge as the subject-matter of revision here, unless the judges, or one of them, certify,-under his seal, that 'it was excepted to at the trial. If the porlion’of the charge, in relation to which the -diminution is suggested, was in fact embraced in the exception, and the omission of .it is a clerical error, hen, upon producing here-a copy of the exception properly certifh d, the plaintiff in error-will be-entitled to a cer-tiorari, in order to. supply the defedt.. .But we cap. in no respect alter or amend the exception, certified under the seals of the judges of the Circuit Court, either by referring tffiihe charge at length, or the notes of the presiding judge;. and as the case is now presented, the motion must be refused.


author: Mr. Justice WAYNE

text:
    The United States, Plaintiffs, v. William H. Freeman.
    Statutes in pari materia should be taken into consideration in construing a law. If a thing contained in a subsequent statute be .within'the reason of a former statute, it.sha!l be taken to be within the meani¿g of that statute.
    And if -it can be gathered'from a subsequent statute in pari.materia what meaning the legislature attached to the words of a former statute, this will amount to a legislative declaration of its meaning, ánd will govern the construction of the first statute.
    The meaning of the legislature may be extended beyond the precise words Used in the law, from the reason or motive upon which the legislature proceeded,' from the end in view, or the purpose which was ■ designed; the limitation of the rule being, that to extend the meaning to any case, not included within the words, the case must be shown to come within the same reason upon which the law-maker proceeded, and not a like reason.
    A breyet field-officer of the marine corps is not entitled by law'to brevet pay and rations, by reason of his commanding a separate post or station; if the force under his command would not entitle a brevet field-officer of infantry of a similar grade to brevet pay and rations.

      The- act of 1834, chap. 133, does not repeal the 1st section of the act of 1818, regulating the pay -and- emoluments of brevet officers.
    The 5th section of the act of 30tti Junejtl-834, is a repeal of the joint resolution of the two houses of Congress of the 25th May,- Í832, respecting the pay and emoluments of the marine corps.
    By force of the" army regulation'No. 1125, authorizing the issues of double rations to officers commanding departments, posts, and arsenals, a brevet field-officer. of marines is entitled to double rations. But the fact must be shown ' that he had such a command of a post or.arsenal at which double rations' had been allowed according to the army regulation^.
    The fact of appropriations having been made by Cdigress for double rations does not determine wEat officers are-entitled to them..
    A brevet field-officer of the marine corps, commanding a separate post, without a command equal to his brevet rank, is not entitled to brevet pay and. emoluments. 'But if such brevet officer is a captain in the line of his corps, and in the actual command of a Company, whether he is in'the command of a post or not, he is entitled to the compensation given-by the 2d section of the act of the 2d March, 1837.
    This case canie up, on a certificate of diviáon, from the Circuit Court of the United States, for the district of Massachusetts.. It was to test the right of the defendant in error who was also the. defendant below, to certain pay, allowances, and emolumentsj which he claimed as being an officer of the marine corps. The questions which were certified to this court-were the following:—
    “1. Whether a brevet field-officer of the marine corps is bylaw entitled to receive the pay and -rations of his brevet rank by reason of 'his commanding a- separate post or station, although the force under ;his command should not be such as would bylaw, or by such regulations as have in this respect and for the time the force of law, entitle a breve field-officer of infantry of ,a similar grade to brevet pay and ra ns ?
    “ 2, Whether the provision respecting brevet pay and rations in the 3d section of the act of 1818, chap. 117, is repealed by the act of1834, chap. 132?
    “ 3. Whether by force of the act of 1834, chap. 132, the joint resolution of the two'houses of Congress of the 25th of May,. 1832, respecting' the pay and emoluments of the marine corps, is repealed ?

      “4. Whether by.force of the army regulation, numbered'1125, authorizing the issues of double rations to officers commanding departments, posts, and arsenals, a brevet field-officer of marines, commanding a seDarate post or- station, is entitled to double rations ?

      “ 5. Whether the additional fact of appropriations having been made by Congress for such double rations, entitles'such marine officer -to receive the same for the years for which such appropriations are made ?

      “ ti.' Whether a brevet field-officer of the marine corps, commanding a separate post, and- -receiving his brevet pay and emoluments, but being a captain in the line, is entitled to the ten dollars a month additional compensation, for responsibility of clothing, &c., under the act of 1834, chap. -, applying to the matine corps -.the •act of 1827, chap. 199 ?”
    There was a statement of facts agreed upon in the court below, the only parts of which that bear upon the certified questions are the following-:-— •. "
    “It is further- agreed that Colonel Freeman was commissioned a captain in the line of the marine corps on the 17th of July, 1821, and on that lineal .rank he was commissioned a lieutenant-colonel by brevet on the 17th of July, 1831, and on the 30th of June, .1834, he'was commissioned a major .in the line of the marine corps.
    . “ Colonel Freeman files an account,, in Set-off against the United States,'off $1013 93,.for brevet' pay and rations.while in command on the Boston station, the samé being a separate station or detachment, under the provision- of the' 3d section of an act of Congress of 16th April, 1814, for the augmentation of the marine corps. Said amount extends from the. 30th of June, 1834, to the, 1st of April, 1842, and has been presented to and disallowed by the fourth auditor.
    “ Said Freeman files art'account also of $1669-for double rations while in command-on be Boston station, between the 30th of June, 1834, and'the 1st of April, 1842, under a joint resolution of Congress of 25th May, ’ 1832, which account has also befen presented.to and disallowed by the fomth auditor.
    “ Said Freeman files also an account of $354 69 for the responsibilities of clothing, See., while a captain in .the line of- the marine , corps, and in command of the marines on the Boston station, from . the 17th of July,T831, to the 30th of June, 1834, under an act of 'Congress of 30th June, 1834, making certain allowances, &c.,,to the. captains and subalterns of the marine corps, as to officers of similar grades in the army, under an. act of 2d March, 1827.; which account has likewise been presentedvto and disallowed by the fourth auditor of the Treasury, on the ground .that the defendant received the pay of a grade higher than that of captain. • ..
    “ It is further agreed that double rations have been paid heretofore and up to the 30th of June, 1834, to the officers of the marine corps, in the manner, and aS stated in the letter of the fourth auditor of date 27th of April; 1842, and marked B, and annexed; also, that estimates and appropriations were made, as stated -in said letter^. since 1834.
    “Upon the foregoing facts, the case is submitted to the court; the accounts of the' said several claims of the said Freeman to be adjusted hereafter by the officers of the Treasury, if. the same, or any portion of them, are found by the court to be legally due.
    Franrxin Dextee, U. S. Dist. Att’y.
    W. H. FREEMAN.” ■

      The laws will.be stated which bear upon each of the three items into which the account is divided, viz.: 1, Pay; 2, Rations; 3,- Clothing.
    1. As to pay.
    On the 6th of July, 1812, (2 Story,. 1278,) Congress passed an “ Act entitled an act -making further provision for the army of the United States, and for other purposes,” the 4th section of which was .as follows:—
    “That the President is hereby authorized to confer brevet rank on'such officers of the army as shall distinguish themselves by gallant actions, or meritorious - conduct, or who shall.have served ten .years in any one grade: Provided, That nothing herein contained ,shall be so construed as to entitle officers so breveted to any additional pay or emoluments, except when commanding separate posts, districts, or detachments, when they shall be entitled to and receive the same pay and emoluments to which officers of the same grade are- now, or hereafter may be, allowed by law.”
    . On the 16th of April, 1814, Congress passed an act (2 Story, 1414) “ authorizing-an augmentation of;the marine corps and for other purposes,” the 3d section of which was exactly similar to the above, except that“ officers of the marine corps” were substituted for “officers.of the army,” and that in .the proviso' the-words “ commanding separate stations or detachments” were substituted for “ commanding separate posts, districts, or detachments.”
    On the 16th of April, 1818, an act was passed (3 Story, 1672) “regulating the pay and emoluments of brevet officers,” the 1st section of which was as follows:
    “Be it enacted, &c., That the officers of the army who have brevet commissions shall be entitled to, and receive, the pay and emoluments of their brevet rank when on duty and having a command according to their brevet rank, and at no other time.’,’
    In 1825, regulations for the-army were issued; .the 1124th section was as follows:
    “ Brevet officers shall receive the pay and emoluments of their brevet commissions, when they exercise command equal to their brevet rank; for example — a brevet captairi must command a company; a brevet .major and abrevet lieutenant-colonel,-abattalion; a brevet colonel, a regiment; a brevet brigadier-general, a brigade; a brevet major-general, a division.”
    On the 30th of June, 1834, Congress passed an act “ for the better organization of theÚnited States marine corps,” (4 Story, 2383.) After increasing the number of officers and privates, the -5th section enacted:
    “ That the officers of the' marme corps shall be entitled to, and receive, the same pay, emoluments, and allowances, as are now, or hereafter may bé, allowed to officers of similar, grades in the infantry of the army, except the adjutant and inspector, who shall,” &c.. &c*>

      The 7th section provided that “the commissions .of the officers now in the marine cerps shall not be vacated by :this'act,” &c. •
    The 9th section repealed so much of the 4th section of the act of-fhe.6th.ef July .as authorized the President to-confer brevet rank on such officers ,óf the army or of the marine corps as shall have served ten years in any one grade.
    The 10th section; repealed all acts or parts of acts inconsistent therewith. ....
    .... In. 1836, another set of army regulations was. issued, the forty-1 eighth article of which contained the following:
    ■ “ Officers who have brevet commissions shall be entitled tó receive their brevet pay and emoluments, when on duty, under the following circumstances:.
    “A brevet captain, when commanding a company.
    “A brevet major, when commanding two companies,i or when acting as major'of the regiment.
    “A brevet lieutenant-cqlonel,.when commanding at least four companies, Or. when acting as'lieutenant-colonel of the regiment.
    '‘‘A brevet colonelj. when commanding nine companies’of artillery, pr ten of infantry or dragoons, or a mixed corps of ten cóm- . panics, or when commanding a regiment.
    “ A brevet brigadier-general, when commanding a brigade of-not - less than two. regiments or twenty companies. ■
    “A brevet major-general, when commanding a division of four regiments or' at least- forty companies. •
    ' “A brevet officer, when assigned by the special order of the secretary-of war to a particular duty and command, according, to his. brevet rank, although.such command be not in the line, .provided. his brevet allowances are reedgnised-in the order of assignment )
    “ To entitle officers -to brevet allowances while .acting as field-officers of regiments according to their brevets,, they must be recog-nised at general heád-quarters. as being on such "duty, and the fact announced'accordingly in general order.s.”
    The laws relating to rations are the foEowihg;
    2. Rations.' ....
    On the 3d-of March, 1797, (1 Story-, 460,) Congress'passed an ' act to. amend and repeal, in part; the-act entitled “An act to ascer- . tain, and fix the military' establishment of the United States,” the' 4th .section of which declared that “ to each-officer, while commanding a separate post, there shall be. .allowed twice .the number of ranons to which.they would otherwise he entitled;”
    On the 16th of March, I802j (2 Story, 831,) an acf was passed “ fixing the military peace establishment of the bJnited States,”bhe 5th section, of which designated the .number of rations to which each officer .should be entitled, and themaddedas follows ,'viz.: “to -.the commanding officers of each separate post, such additional, num- . her-of rations as the -President of the United States shall, from time to time, direct, having respect 'to thé special circumstances of. each post.”
    On the 25th of May; 1832, (4 Story,. 2333,) Congress passed a joint resolution as follows :■ “ Resolved, &c:, That the pay, subsistence, emoluments, and allowances of officers, non-coinmissioned officers, musicians,, and privates of the United States marine corps, shall be the sainé as they were previously-to the 1st of April, 1829, and shall so continue until they shall be altered by law.”
    In 1834, the act was passed which has. already been mentioned under the head of “ Pay.”
    3. Clothing.
    On the 2d of March, 1827, Congress passed an act, (3 Story, 2057,) the 2d section of which was as follows: That every officer, in the actual command of a company in the army of the United Statés shall be entitled to receive $10 per month, additional pay, ' as “compensation for his duties and responsibilities, with respect to the-,clothing, arms, and accoutrements of the company, whilst Re. shall be in the actual command thereof”

      Nelson, (attorney-general,) for the United States.
    Colonel Freeman, (in a printed argument,)'the defendant in the court below, for himself.

      Nelson made the, following points:
    1st. That a brevet field-officer of the marine corps is not by law entitled to receive the pay and rations of his brevet rank, under the circumstances stated in this case.
    . 2d. That the provision respecting brevet pay and rations, in the 3d section of the act of 1818, chap. 117, is repealed by the act of 1834, chap. 132.
    • 3d. .That the joint resolution of the two houses of Congress, of the 25th of May*, 1832,' is repealed by the act of 1834, chap. 132.
    4th. That a brevet -field-officer of marines, commanding a separate post or .station, .is not entitled to double rations by force of Army Regulation, numbered 1125.
    5th. That tiie additional fact of appropriations having been made by Congress for double rations, does not entitle such marine officer to receive the same, if otherwise not entitled thereto by law.
    6th. That a brevet field-officer of marines is not entitled to the $10 a month, under the act of 1834, chap. 132, under the circumstances stated in the sixth question,, certified;in .the record.
    He examined the subjects in the order mentioned above, of Pay, Rations, and Clothing.
    !• Pay.
    He admitted .that if.the act of 1814 is still in force, the defendant is entitled to.brevet pay; but it is not in force. The act of 1834 has changed the law; the 5th • section puts the marine corps on the same footing with the infantry. What, then, were the infantry entitled to ? To answer this question, we must look at the laws of 1812 and 1814, (the same in substance upon this point,) and also the law of the 16th April, 1818, which expressly declares that officers of the army shall receive brevet pay when they have a command according to their brevet rank, and at no other time. Before they can .claim the pay, the condition must be shown to be complied with; but here it is admitted that Col. Freeman had not such a command.
    The Army Regulations of 1825, reg. 1124, say that brevet officers, are to receive pay only when the command is equal to the rank; and those of 1836 say the same. Freeman was a lieutenant-colonel by brevet, and had not the command appropriate to that rank.
    Does the act of 1834 repeal that of 1814? We say it does. It purports to re-organize the marine corps; it makes great changes as to the officers and their rate of.pay; and the 7th section provides that the commissions of the officers shall not be vacated. Why put in such a clause, unless there was a design to put the corps upon a new footing altogether? The 5th section changes the pay, emoluments, arid' allowances, and' puts them on the footing of infantry; and the 10th section repeals all laws inconsistent with the act. The acts of 1818 and 1834 repealed all former laws, both as to infantry and marines.
    2. Rations.
    By the act of 1797, double rations were given to a commander of a separate post; but the act of 1802 changed this rule, and siibsti-tutéd another. Instead' of giving them to every commander,, the President was to designate the number of rations' for each post, according to circumstances. This was a repeal of the act of 1797. They- cannot both stand.
    But it is said that the joint résolution.of 1832 changed the rule, as to officers of marines, and rendered lawful the same pay, rations, &c., which they had,, in- fact, received before 1829. Suppose we admit this. That resolution looked' to a future change,, which was made by the act of 1834, which, referred not only to pay, but allowances and emoluments. Infantry are not entitled to these allowances, and therefore the marines cannot be.
    These considerations furnish answers to the three first certified questions.
    With regard to the fourth, it maybe said that the army regulations give double rations to such posts as the War Department shall authorize; but the act of 1802 says'that the President is the person who is to give the authority; and supposing that the War Departrrient represents the special authority of the President, then we say, that the Department never gave such authority for this post. The defendant must show that it did.
    Besides, the regulation was not intended to apply to the marine^. They were under the Navy Department.

      The 5th question is easily answered. If the defendant was not entitled to the allowance's by law, he cannot claim them because Congress placed money in the hands of the executive,' in case it should be. wanted. The service might have' been performed or it might not, and the money was ready in case it should be performed.
    ' .But here'it was not.
    3. Clothing.
    . Ten dollars per month were to be given to commanders of companies. But Freeman was .a major by commission, and lieutenant-colonel by brevet. The law only includes captains;. and, moreover, the record does. not show that there was a company of marines at Boston, and the 'fact, I believe, was not so.
   Mr. Justice WAYNE

delivered the opinion of the court.

Several questions occurred upon the trial of this cause in the court below, upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed, and' they were certified to this .court for decision.

From a careful examination of all.the acts of Congress relating to the. pay and emoluments of brevet officers, and those acts establishing and. organizing the marine corps, we are of the'opinion, whatever may have been a different practice, that the brevet officers of the marine corps have always been by law. upon the same footing with other officers of the military establishment of the United States,- ‘ in respect.toAe circumstances which entitle them to pay and emoluments, and that they continue to be so. Brevet pay and emoluments were originally given by the act of 1812, (2 Story’s Laws, 1278,) and by the act of 1814, (2 Story’s Laws, 1414,) when breveted officers commanded separate posts, districts, stations, or detachments. But an act was passed in 1818, (3 Story’s Laws, 1672,) regulating the pay- and emoluments of brevet officers, the 1st section of which is, that “the officers of the army who have brevet commissions, shall be entitled to and shall receive the pay and emoluments of their brevet rank, when on duty and having a command according to their brevet rank, and at no other time.” The 2d section is, “ that no brevet commission shall hereafter be conferred, but by and with the advice' of the Senate.” By the acts of 1812 and 1814, .they were conferred by the President alone. By the 1st section of the act of 1818, it will be perfceived that pay and emoluments were attached to command, and not, as they had. been, to the command of separate posts, stations,, districts, or detachments. That the act of 1818 repealed the 4th section of the act of 1812, no one doubts. But it is said, it is not á repeal of the 3d section of the act of 1814, because the act, in terms, speaks of the officers of the army who have brevet commissions, and not of such officers of the mariné corps. It may be well to state, that the 3d section of the act of 1814 js a transcript of the 4th section of the act of 1812, except that it has in it the words “ officers of. the marine corps,” instead of “officers of the army;” and that the words “stations or detachments” were substituted for “posts, districts, or detachments.” The first point for consideration is, was the act of 1818 a repeal of the 4th section of the act of 1812, and of the 3d section of the act of 1814, as to .the condition upon which brevet officers were to have additional pay and emoluments? It is conceded that it repealed, the 4th section in the act of 1812. We are of opinion that it repealed also the 3d section of the act of 1814. It cannot be denied that the marine corps is an addition to the “ military establishment of the United States.” It is declared to be so in the act by which it was organized. Now, though neither that fact, nor the wprds “ military establishment,” as they are used in the acts of Congress, will of themselves authorize the inclusion of officers of the marine'corps, within the words “officers of the army,” yet considering-the subject-matter of the act of 1818; the application of the 2d Section of the act to all breveted officers; and the assimilation of the • marine, corps, by the act of 1814, to the army, to give to its officers bre'vet commissions, and pay, exactly, too, in the same way as they . were given fo the officers of the' army, by the act of 1812; we do not see how, consistently with a correct judicial interpretation, the Conclusion can be resisted, that Congress did intend, in passing the act of 1818,' to place the officers of the marine, corps and the officers of .the army upon the same footing, in respect to brevet pay and emoluments. Though what has-been differently done is binding upon the government, and cannot be recalledj to. the pecuniary disadvantage of' any officer, who may have recéived brevet pay and emoluments, not according to the act of 1818, no erroneous practice under it, of however long standing, can justify the allowance of a claim, contested by the government, in a suit, contrary to what is the true meaning and intent of that act. The error of the accounting officers of the Treasury, and of, the officers of the marine .corps, in the construction of the act of 1818, arose from that act having been considered by itself, without any reference to other, statutes relating to brevet commissions and pay,’ and without any examination whether the words “ officers of the army,” as used in the lst'section of the. act of 1818, though they are descriptive of a particular class, .were hot intended, from their connection with the subject-matter of the act, to comprehend all officers of the military-establishment of the United States, who, when the act was passed, were only under like circumstances entitled to brevet pay and emoluments.

The correct rule of interpretation 'is, that if divers statutes relate to the same, thing, they ought' all to bó taken into consideration in construing any one of them, and it is an established rule, of law, that all acts in pan materia are to be taken together, as if they were' one law. Doug. 30; 2 Term Rep. 387, 586; 4 Maule & Selw. 210. If a thing contained in a subsequent statute, be within the reason •of a former statute, it shall be taken, to be within the meaning of. that statute; Lord Raym. 1028; and if it can be gathered from: a subsequent statute in pari materia, what meaning the legislature attached to-the words of a former statute, they will amount-to, a ^legislative declaration of its meaning, and will govern the construction of die first statute. Morris v. Mellin, 6 Barn. & Cress. 464; 7 Barn. & Cress. 99. Wherever, any words of a statute are doubtful or-obscure, the- intention óf the legislature is to. be resorted to, in order to find the-meaning of the words. Wimbish v Tailbois, Plowd. 57: "A-thing. -which is within the intention of the makers of -the ■ Statute, is as much, within the statute, as if it- were within the . letter. Zouch v. Stowell, Plowd. 366. These citations aré but - different illustrations of the rule, that the meaning of the legislature may be extended;beyond, the precise words used in the law, frofia the reason or motive upon which the legislature proceeded.; from the end in view, or the purpose which was designed — the limitation of the rule being, that to -extend the meaning to any cáse not included in the words, the case must be shown to come within thé same reason upon which the lawmaker proceeded, and not only, within a like - reason. This court has repeatedly, in effect, acted upon the rule, -and there may be found, in the reports of its'decisions, cases under it, like the cases which have, been cited from the reports of the English courts^ In 4 Dall. 14,“ The intention of the legislature, when discovered, must prevail, .any. rule.of construction declaredly previous acts to the contrary notwithstanding.” In’ 2 Cranch, 33, A law is the best expositor of itself — that every part of an act is to be taken into, view for the purpose of discovering the mind of the legislature,” See'. &c. In the case of the United States v. Fisher et al., Assignees of Blight, in the same book, the court said, •“ it is undoubtedly a well-established principle in the exposition of statutes, that every part is to be considered, and the intention of the legislature to be extracted from the whole,” &c. In 2 Peters, 662, A legislative act is to be interpreted according to the intention of the legislature,, apparent upon its face. Every technical rule, as to the construction or force of particular terms, must yield to the clear expression of the paramount will-of the legislature.” In Paine’s C. C. Rep. 11, “In doubtful -cases, a court should compare all the parts of a statute, and-different statutes in pari maferia, to ascertain the intention of-the legislature.” So in 1 Brockenb. C. C. Rep. 162. In the construction of statutes, one part must be construed by another. In order to test the legislative, intention, the whole statute must be inspected. ' No one of the cases cited will justify; nor have they been cited to sanction an equitable construction of-statutes beyond the just application of adjudicated cases. They have been brought together upon this’ occasion, for the-purpose of showing'KoW many-authorities there' are, to sustain, the conclusion, 'that the act of'1818, regulating the pay/and, emoluments of brevet officers, repealed the act of 1814, upon' which the defendant relies to support his claim to brevet pay.. Our answer to the first question then is, that a brevet field-officer of the marine corps is not entitled, by law, to brevet pay and rations, by reason of his commanding a separate post or station, if the force'under his command would not/ entitle a brevet field-officer of infantry, of a similar grade, to brevet pay and rations.' We will add to our exposition of the law upon this point, that brevet officers of the marine corps, in respect to pay and emoluments, were included under the Army Regulation 1124, sanctioned on the 1st March, 1825; were included also, in the regulation upon the subject of brevet pay, sanctioned by the President December 1, 1836, and that, they may claim brevet pay and emoluments under the regulations of 1841, when they exercise a command, according to the provisions regulating brevet pay, in page-344, Army Regulations of 1841. This right to brevet pay results from the marine corps having been subjected, by the' act of 1-798, (1 Story’s Laws, 542,) and by other acts of Congress, to the same rules and articles of war “ as aré prescribed for the military establishment of the United States,’? and from the exceptioii, in the 2d section of the act of 30th June, 1834, taking them out.of- the regulations whieh might be established for the navy, when detached for service with the army, by order of the President of the United States.

To the second - question we reply, that the act of 1834, chv 132, does not repeal the first section of the act of 1818, regulating the pay and emoluments of brevet officers. That section of the act is still in force, and upon it rests the army regulations, in relation to brevet pay and emoluments.- The act of 1834 only repeals those sfectionsin the acts of 1812 and 1814, and in the act of 1818; by whieh the President wás authorized to confer, and the Senate was permitted to confirm, brevet commissions conferred upon officers of thé :army, or officers of the marine - corps, for ten years’ service in any one grade, excepting such officers as- had, before the passage .of the act, acquired the right to have brevet rank conferred by ten years’ service in any one grade, if the' President should think fit to nominate them to the senate for brevet commissions.

To the third question we reply, that the 5th section of the act of the 30th June, 1834, is a repeal of the joint resolution of the two houses of Congress of the 26th May, 1832, respecting the pay and emoluments of the marine corps.

The fourth question involves the charge made by the defendant for double rations. Additional rations are provided for by the 5th section of the' act of 1802, (2 Story’s Laws, 831.) “ To the commanding officer of each separate post, such additional number of rations as the President, of Ihe United States shall, from time to time, direct, having respect to thé special circumstances of each post,” is the language of a part of the section. It is the authority for the 1125th paragraph in the Army Regulations of 1825. The President sanctioned those regulations, and by doing so, delegated his authority, as he had a right to do, to the secretary at war. The Army Regulations, when sanctioned by the President, have the force of law, because it is doné by him by the authority of law. The Regulations of 1825, then,-were as conclusive upon the accounting officer of the Treasury, whilst they continued in force, as those of 1836 afterwards were, and as those of 1841 now are. When, then, an .officer presents, with his account, an authentic document or certifi-. cate of his having commanded a post or arsenal, for which ah order has been issued from the War Department, in conformity with the provisions of the Army Regulations, allowing double rations, his right to them is established, nor can they be withheld, without doing him a wrong, for which the law gives him .a remedy.,. But as the question in this case must be decided upon the agreed statement of facts in the record, between Colonel Freeman and the District Attorney of the United States, we have no hesitation in answering it adversely from the claim of the defendant, for double rations, as the fact does not appear in the record, that he had such a command of a post or arsenal, at which double rations had been allowed; according to the Army Regulations, which were in force, from the time his account begins, or according to those subsequently sanctioned by the President. To the fifth question, we reply, that the feet of. appropriations having been made by Congress for double'rations, does not determine what officers in command are entitled to them. • The sixth question relates to the charge of .the defendant for compensation for his duties and responsibilities, with respect to clothing, arms, and accoutrements,” while he was a captain in the line of the marine corps, and in. command of the marines on the Boston station. The question, as it is put, makes it necessary for us to repeat whafhas been already said in a previous part of this opinion, that a brevet'field-officer of the marine corps, commanding a separate post, without a.command equal to bis brevet rank, is not entitled to. brevet pay and emoluments. But if such brevet officer is a captain in the line of his corps, and in the actual command of a company, whether he is in command of a post or not, he is entitled to the compensation given by the 2d section of the act of the 2d March, 1827,.(3 Story’s Laws, 2057.) We cannot give any other answer to this question, because the first part of it attaches brevet pay and emoluments to the command of a separate post, for which it is not allowed by law, and cannot therefore influence any right to compensation which may have accrued to a captain in the line under the 2d section of the act of the 2d March, 1827. That act is in full force, unrepeáled in any way by the act of 1834, for the better organization Of the marine corps. 4 Story, 2383. And captains and subalterns, of that corps are as much entitled to its provisions, as any other captains or subalterns in the military establishment of . tiie .United States. If there was any doubt of this, before the act of 1834 was passed, tbe 5th section of that act must be considered as having put an end to it. It is, “ that the officers of the marine corps shall.be entitled-to, and receive the same pay, emoluments, and allowances, as are now, or may hereafter be allowed to similar grades in the infantry of the army,’.’ subjefct to the exception' in the section .following the words just cited.

We shall direct the foregoing answers to the questions, upon which the judges in the court below were opposed in opinion, to be certified to that court.