McLean v. United States
Headline: Court orders full back pay and allowances for a retired officer’s widow, ruling Congress meant attributed service to include forage and servants’ pay and reversing denial by lower court.
Holding: The Court held that the 1905 act required payment of all back pay and emoluments, treating the officer as if in service and including commuted forage and servants’ pay.
- Widow entitled to commuted forage and servants’ pay under the 1905 statute.
- Accounting officers must treat attributed service as full service for pay calculations.
- Reverses lower court dismissal and orders further proceedings to calculate payment.
Summary
Background
Sarah K. McLean, the widow of Nathaniel H. McLean, sued after Congress in 1905 directed officials to settle all back pay and emoluments that would have been due to him as a major from July 23, 1864, to March 3, 1875. McLean had resigned in 1864 and was later reinstated by law and placed on the retired list. The War Department allowed back pay and personal subsistence but denied claims for commuted forage and servants’ pay; the lower court likewise dismissed those items.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether the 1905 law should be read to treat McLean as if he had been in service for the whole period, and thus entitled to emoluments like forage and servants’ pay. The Court said the statute's language is broad and deliberate: it directed payment of “all back pay and emoluments that would have been due and payable.” That wording attributes service to McLean for the period and requires full compensation, not just items actually used while in service. The Government’s argument that resignation prevented certification for those allowances failed because Congress intended complete restoration.
Real world impact
The ruling reverses the dismissal of the forage and servants’ pay claims and sends the case back for calculation and payment. Practically, it requires accounting officers to include emoluments treated as owed under the 1905 statute, benefiting Mrs. McLean and others similarly situated when a statute attributes service and compensation.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?