Summary

Joseph McKenna United States v. Farenholt — Opinion of the Court

Assistant surgeons shall rank with assistant surgeons in the Army.' Commenting on this statute the government says: 'Assistant surgeons in the Army being mounted, the court very justly granted mounted pay to Richardson, who ranked with assistant surgeons in the Army.' In other words, the government contends it was the purpose of Congress to give the inferior officer the better pay. The Assistant Attorney General ventures on no explanation of this anomaly, but insists upon the written word. A court is not always confined to the written word.
Source: Wikisource

Joseph McKenna United States v. Farenholt — Opinion of the Court

And 'construction is the drawing of conclusions respecting subjects that lie beyond the direct expression of the text, from elements known from and given in the text,-conclusions which are in the spirit, though not within the letter, of the text.' Lieber, 56. The application of this rule is clear. Consideration of the provisions relative to the rank and pay of officers of the Army and Navy make it evident that Congress used the words 'assistant surgeon' as descriptive of the whole class of assistant surgeons, passed as well as those not passed.
Source: Wikisource

Joseph McKenna United States v. Farenholt — Opinion of the Court

United States, supra, was correctly decided, and that the rule has been extended by the Comptroller of the Treasury to passed assistant surgeons, but attacks the practice of the Comptroller, and rejects the application of the Richardson Case upon the distinction between an assistant surgeon, which Richardson was, and a passed assistant surgeon, which appellee is.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature