THIS is the case that Holmes referred to in his laconic opinion in U.S. v Barnett. As you can see the number, 236, is higher than Barnett's, 235.
US v. SWEET , 189 U.S. 471 (1903)
United States Supreme Court
No. 236
Decided: April 27, 1903
So these were military serviceman's case. They argued that they were entitled to post-service benefits since they left the service on their own and had not been dishonorably discharged. Holmes ruled for Barnett and will rule here for Sweet.
...The petitioner was a second lieutenant of volunteers in the United States Army, tendered his resignation, and was honorably discharged on October 15, 1898. ...He was mustered into the service at St. Paul, Minnesota, his residence being Minneapolis. The place of his discharge was Camp Meade, Pennsylvania. He was not furnished transportation or subsistence, but returned to his residence at his own expense, and later brought this petition to recover travel pay and commutation of subsistence...
The government opposed this? That's bullshit, man.
That section [of the statute] allows the items demanded 'when an officer is discharged from the service, except by way of punishment for an offense.'
It is admitted that the settled practice of the War Department and of the Treasury has been to deny the allowances claimed when an officer or soldier is discharged at his own request, for his own pleasure or convenience.
Cheapskates!
...it is said that in this case the language of the statute admits of no doubt. It is argued that the words 'except by way of punishment for an offense' exclude the implication of other exceptions to the rule.
Okay, so the government's construction was a dishonorable discharge swallowed all honorable discharges except where the government said, "Okay, you can go now"? That is bullshit, man; the government was really being punkin eaters. I confer on them a Recent Assholes citation and post-date it to 1903.
Okay, so the government's argument was that for three years only, going back to 1799, "honorable discharge" was substituted for "discharge." Sweet fell within that not so sweet spot. Holmes:
The phrase, 'honorably discharged,' seems first to have appeared in the Revised Statutes, and to have been amended back to the ancient form [discharged] in three years. Except for that short intervening time, the allowance of travel pay and commutation of subsistence has gone on under the early words and the practical construction of them to which we have referred.
...It is quite true that in the military service the word 'discharge' is the word applied to an order ending the service of an officer at his own request. But in other connections it conveys the notion of a movement beginning with the superior, and more or less adverse to the object; as, for instance, when we speak of discharging a servant. Usually it is a slightly discrediting verb. If it is taken in its ordinary meaning here, the exception in case of a discharge by way of punishment raises no difficulty, because a discharge on resignation is not within the meaning of the principal clause. The course of the departments has amounted to no more than interpreting the word in this exact sense.
Okay, this is a little bit different for Holmes, empathetic. If he had wanted to, he could have denied both soldiers relief on "discharged" as a military term of art. Instead, he went outside the military language to the common understanding of "discharged". The "understanding" within the military branches had always been that soldiers not dishonorably discharged were entitled to travel pay.
...taking everything into account, we are not prepared to overturn the long-established understanding of the departments charged with the execution of the law.
Judgment reversed.
I would have gone medieval on the government in these cases. Holmes is cool, even cold, but still it is still an empathetic decision. In the Jim Crow cases that he has ruled on so far, he did not have that empathy, no siree.
