199
where they expire on the thirty-first days of December, eighteen hun-dred and thirty-seven, eighteen hundred and thirty-eight, and eighteenhundred and thirty-nine, respectively, for four years and six months, soas to cause them to terminate on the thirtieth day of June, eighteenhundred and forty-two, eighteen hundred and forty-three, and eighteenhundred and forty-four, to the end that the contract may commence onthe first day of July, instead of the first day of January.
Approved, March 2, 1837.
ized to makecontracts whichexpire on 31stDecember,1837, ’8, and ’9,and terminateon 30th June,1842,’3, and’4.
No. 2. A Resolution granting a pension to Susan Decatur, widow of the late March 3,1837.Stephen Decatur. (o')
Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the UnitedStates of America in Congress assembled, That Mrs. Susan Decatur,widow of the late Commodore Stephen Decatur , be paid from the navypension fund a pension for five years, commencing from the thirtiethof June, eighteen hundred and thirty-four, in conformity with the pro-visions of the act concerning naval pensions and the navy pension fund,passed thirtieth June eighteen hundred and thirty-four, and that she beallowed from said fund the arrearages of the half-pay of a post captain,from the death of Commodore Decatur to the thirtieth of June, eighteenhundred and thirty-four, together with the pension hereby allowed her,and that the arrearage of said pension be vested in the Secretary of theTreasury in trust for the use of the said Susan Decatur: Provided,That the said pension shall cease on the death or marriage of the saidSusan Decatur.
Approved, March 3, 1837.
To be paidfrom the navypension fund, apension for fiveyears, &c.
Act of March3, 1837, ch. 36.
Proviso.
(a) On the 3d of March, 1837, Congress passed an act giving to the widow of any officer who haddied in the naval service of the United States , authority to receive, out of the navy pension fund, halfthe monthly pay to which the deceased officer would have been entitled under the acts regulating thepay in the navy, in force on the 1st day of January, 1835. On the same day, a resolution was adoptedby Congress, giving to Mrs. Decatur, widow of Captain Stephen Decatur , a pension for five years, outof the navy pension fund, and in conformity with the act of 30th June, 1834, and the arrearages of thehalf-pay or a post captain, from the death of Commodore Decatur, to the 30th June, 1834 ; the arrear-ages to be vested in trust for her by the Secretary of the Treasury. The pension and arrearages, underthe act of 3d March, 1837, were paid to Mrs. Decatur on her application to Mr. Dickerson, the Secre-tary of the Navy , under a protest by her, that by receiving the same she did not prejudice her claimunder the resolution of the same date. She applied to the Secretary of the Navy for the pension andarrears, under the resolution, which were Tefused by him. Afterwards, she applied to Mr. Paulding,who succeeded Mr. Dickerson as Secretary of the Navy , for the pension and arrears, which wererefused by him. The Circuit Court of the County of Washington, in the District of Columbia , refusedto gram a mandamus to the Secretary of the Navy , commanding him to pay the arrears, and to allowthe pension under the resolution of March 3d, 1837. Held, that the judgment of the Circuit Court was correct. Decatur u. Paulding, 14 Peters, 497.
In general, the official duties of the head of one of the executive departments, whether imposed byact of Congress or by resolution, are not mere ministerial duties. The head of an executive depart-ment of the government, in the administration of the various and important concerns of his office, iscontinually required to exercise judgment and discretion. He must exercise his judgment in expound-ing the laws aud resolutions of Congress , under which he is from time to time required to act. If hedoubts, he has a right to call on the Attorney General to assist him with his counsel; and it would bedifficult to imagine why a legal adviser was provided by law for the heads of departments, as well asfor the President, unless their duties were regarded as executive, in which judgment and discretionwere to be exercised. Ibid.
If a suit should come before the Supreme Court which involved the construction of any of the lawsimposing duties on the heads of the executive departments, the Court certainly would not be bound toadopt the construction given by the head of a department. And if they supposed his decision to bewrong, they would, of course, so pronounce their judgment. But the judgment of the Court upon theconstruction of a law, must be given in a case in which they have jurisdiction ; and in which it is theirduty to interpret the act of Congress , in order to ascertain the rights of the parties in the cause beforethem. The Court could not entertain an appeal from the decision of one of the Secretaries, nor revisehis judgment in any case where the law authorized him to exercise his discretion or judgment. Norcan it, by mandamus, act directly upon the officer, or guide and control his judgment or discretion inthe matters committed to his care, in the ordinary discharge of his official duties. The interference ofthe Court with the performance of the ordinary duties of the executive departments of the governmentwould be productive of nothing but mischief; and this power was never intended to be given to them.Ibid.