Burnett v. United States/Opinion of the Court

by by John Marshall Harlan

United States Supreme Court

116 U.S. 158

Burnett  v.  United States

 Argued: December 21, 1885. ---

The only question presented by the parties for our consideration is whether, under existing statutes, the widow of Gen. Burnett is entitled to the same pension that he was receiving at his death.

Section 4692 of the Revised Statutes provides that 'every person specified in the several classes enumerated in section 4693, who has been, since the fourth day of March, 1861, or who is hereafter disabled, under the conditions therein stated, shall * * * be placed on the list of invalid pensioners of the United States, and be entitled to receive for a total disability, or a permanent specific disability, such pension as is hereafter provided in such cases, and for an inferior disability, except in cases of permanent specific disability for which the rate of pension is expressly provided, an amount proportionate to that provided for total disability, and such pension shall commence as hereinafter provided and continue during the existence of the disability.' 17 St. 566; 18 St. 61; 19 St. 403. Section 4693 specifies who shall be beneficiaries under the preceding section, among whom is 'any officer of the army, including regulars, volunteers, or militia * * * disabled by reason of any would or injury received, or disease contracted, while in the service of the United States and in the line of duty.' 17 St. 566, 567; 19 St. 403. Section 4695 provides that 'the pension for total disability shall be, * * * for lieutenant colonels and officers of higher rank in the military service, * * * thirty dollars per month.' 17 St. 567; 19 St. 264. Other sections fix the amount of pensions in cases of disabilities known as permanent specific disability and inferior disability. It is then provided, by section 4702, that 'if any person embraced within the provisions of sections 4692 and 4693 has died since the fourth day of March, 1861, or hereafter dies, by reason of any wound, injury, or disease, which, under the conditions and limitations of such sections, would have entitled him to an invalid pension had he been disabled, his widow * * * shall be entitled to receive the same pension as the husband or father would have been entitled to had he been totally disabled, to commence from the death of the husband or father, to continue to the widow during her widowhood,' etc. Act March 3, 1873, (17 St. 569, c. 234, § 8.)

It would seem to be too clear for discussion that the construction which the court placed upon these statutory provisions is correct. It is not to be doubted that the words 'total disability' in the pension laws have a technical signification which cannot be disregarded. And when the statute fixes $30 per month as the pension, in case of total disability, of an officer of the rank of Gen. Burnett, and declares that his widow shall receive the same pension as her husband would have received had he been 'totally disabled,' there is no room left for a construction that would give her a pension in excess of that amount. If it is supposed that the law operates unjustly against the officers and soldiers who became 'totally disabled' in the service, or that an unreasonable distinction is made between different kinds of disability, the remedy is with another department of the government. The courts must give effect to the intention of congress as manifested by the statute. They cannot make, but can only declare, the law.

The judgment is affirmed.

Notes