Reichherzer v. United States

Citations

• 43 Ct. Cl. 359
• 1908 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 34
• 1907 WL 859

Syllabus

<p>On the Proofs.</p> <p>On the 21st October, 189T, the claimant is enlisted in the Army at Vancouver Barracks and subsequently discharged from the service on the 20th of October, 1900, at Peking, China. He is carried back from Taku, China, to San Francisco, Cal., on a government transport. He is furnished with subsistence on the voyage and is not charged for transportation.</p> <p>I.Under tlie Act 26th May, 1900 (31 Stat. L., p. 210), an enlisted man in the Army discharged from the service in China is entitled to 4 cents a mile from the place of discharge to the place of enlistment in the United States less the cost of subsistence on an army transport. The act is, in effect, a repeal of Revised Statutes, § 1290.</p> <p>II.The Act 6th June, 1900 (31 Stat. L., p. 708), restricts its own application to cases which arose between April 21, 1898, and the passage of the act. It has no application to a ease which arose in October, 1900.</p> <p>III. Where one statute provides that where a soldier is discharged from the service “ he shall he allowed transportation and subsistence,” and a subsequent statute provides “ that hereafter an enlisted man when discharged from the service shall receive four cents per mile from the place of discharge to the place of his enlistment,” the repeal by implication is as clear as though the former statute had been repealed in terms.</p> <p>IV. Where a soldier discharged from the service is entitled by law to receive 4 cents per mile for travel from the place of discharge beyond seas to the place of enlistment he does not forfeit it by accepting free transportation on a government transport. But from this must be deducted the cost of subsistence on the transport.</p>