Jones, Chief Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
The plaintiffs sue for pay and allowances which they claim to be due them as prisoners of war from the dates of capture in 1950 and 1951 until their discharge from the Army on January 23, 1954.
They had enlisted in the United States Army at different dates in 1949. At the time of their capture they were privates, first class.
The applicable statutes are set out in the footnote.1 The [250]*250plaintiffs claim that from the date of their capture until their actual discharge they were entitled under the statutes to the regular pay and allowances of soldiers of their classification.
[251]*251The defendant alleges in the pleadings and it is not denied by the plaintiffs that they were among prisoners who were captured; that these three refused to be repatriated and return to the United States when they were released from prison; that instead they chose to remain with the Communists and in a communist country; that between the time of the plaintiffs’ capture and the time of their dishonorable discharge each plaintiff adhered to, worked for, and collaborated with the enemy of the United States; that since they refused repatriation when they were released from [252]*252prison and since they continued in their election until January 23,1954, they were on that date dishonorably discharged from the Army.
These allegations are nowhere disputed.
The defendant asserts that because of these admitted facts the plaintiffs were guilty of a breach of the contracts of enlistment and of their oaths of faithful service; and that therefore each plaintiff abandoned his status as a soldier in the United States Army and forfeited all pay and allowances to which he might have been entitled otherwise.
The undisputed testimony shows that during the period of their confinement each of the three plaintiffs became monitors for the “forced study groups,” the sessions of which the prisoners were compelled to attend. Armed guards attended these sessions. The programs included lectures picturing what were declared to be the bad aspects of life in the United States as contrasted with idyllic life under communism. As monitors, they procured and distributed propaganda literature, and threatened to turn in names of any prisoners who refused to read and discuss favorably these propaganda handouts.
Each of the plaintiffs made tape recordings which were used as broadcasts and over the camp public address system. Each of them wore Chinese uniforms and were permitted to attend meetings outside the camp. The details of the plaintiffs’ consorting, fraternizing and cooperating with their captors and the devious ways in which they sought favors for themselves, thus causing hardship and suffering to the other prisoners, are set out in our findings 7 to 30, inclusive.
Two of Bell’s recordings were broadcast over the Peiping radio, stating among other things that on the orders of his platoon leader, his men had killed North Korean prisoners of war, and that President Truman was a war monger. In written articles for the camp newspaper he alleged that American troops had committed atrocities and he personally had been ordered to kill women and children and not to take prisoners of war, and that if given the opportunity he would run a tank over the President’s body.
Bell was paid money to write these articles. He also delivered lectures before his company and to the camp on American aggression. He appeared voluntarily in a motion [253]*253picture and appeared in bi-monthly plays. He stated that if given a weapon he would fight against the United States. He sold food intended for the sick to other prisoners of war. By making reports to the Chinese, he caused one man to be bayonetted and others to be placed in solitary confinement.
Cowart did many similar things, wrote propaganda articles accusing American soldiers of atrocities and of using germ warfare. He drew posters and cartoons for the enemy, acted in plays, walked and talked with the Chinese officers, guards and interpreters, lived part of the time at Chinese regimental headquarters, stated he hated America, desired to study in China and to return to the United States in five years to help in the overthrow of the government.
Griggs did many similar things, attended enemy parties, visited Chinese headquarters frequently, referred to the Chinese as comrades, was accorded special privileges, made broadcasts, signed leaflets, wrote articles accusing the American soldiers of atrocities and declared the United States had used germ warfare.
These and many other acts of perfidy are abundantly proved by the record and are nowhere denied either in the pleadings or in the evidence. The record does not disclose any suggestion whatever of brainwashing. As a matter of fact, the record justifies the conclusion that at all times these men did these acts voluntarily for the purpose of helping themselves, in complete disregard of the effect it might have on the treatment of their fellow prisoners. The record does not indicate a touch of loyalty either to their compatriots or to their country after the period they were taken prisoners of war.
The defendant produced at the trials as witnesses certain Army staff officers who testified authoritatively that the United States did not authorize the use of germ warfare in Korea, did not ship any materials or equipment to Korea for that purpose, and received no requests for such materials or equipment. Rather than have this testimony remain in the record as evidence, the plaintiffs’ counsel stipulated that neither the United States nor any of the United Nations forces engaged in germ warfare in Korea. In view of this stipulation and concession, the commissioner sustained plaintiffs’ objection to this part of defendant’s testimony but per[254]*254mitted it to remain in the record as defendant’s offer of proof under Rule 41 (c).
In reference to plaintiff Bell’s statement, as shown in finding 14, that the American troops had injected poison gas into the blood of communist prisoners of war on a ship, plaintiffs’ counsel stipulated at the trial that this had not been done.
After the Korean armistice, which was signed July 27, 1953, and prisoner repatriation had begun on August 5,1953, each of the plaintiffs refused repatriation and voluntarily elected to go to Communist China. After the plaintiffs were discharged on January 23,1954, they filed this suit for their pay during the period indicated.
R.S. 1288, 10 U.S.C. § 846, supra, was enacted in 1814. Numerous statutes have been enacted and committee reports made since that time. These latter statutes, including sections 1002, 1006, and 1009, supra, of the legislation entitled the Missing Persons Act, as amended, cover the cases here presented. In fact, not only the language of the acts themselves, but. the committee reports at the time these sections were enacted clearly show that but for this Missing Persons Act there would be no basis of a claim for compensation.2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Jones, Chief Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
The plaintiffs sue for pay and allowances which they claim to be due them as prisoners of war from the dates of capture in 1950 and 1951 until their discharge from the Army on January 23, 1954.
They had enlisted in the United States Army at different dates in 1949. At the time of their capture they were privates, first class.
The applicable statutes are set out in the footnote.1 The [250]*250plaintiffs claim that from the date of their capture until their actual discharge they were entitled under the statutes to the regular pay and allowances of soldiers of their classification.
[251]*251The defendant alleges in the pleadings and it is not denied by the plaintiffs that they were among prisoners who were captured; that these three refused to be repatriated and return to the United States when they were released from prison; that instead they chose to remain with the Communists and in a communist country; that between the time of the plaintiffs’ capture and the time of their dishonorable discharge each plaintiff adhered to, worked for, and collaborated with the enemy of the United States; that since they refused repatriation when they were released from [252]*252prison and since they continued in their election until January 23,1954, they were on that date dishonorably discharged from the Army.
These allegations are nowhere disputed.
The defendant asserts that because of these admitted facts the plaintiffs were guilty of a breach of the contracts of enlistment and of their oaths of faithful service; and that therefore each plaintiff abandoned his status as a soldier in the United States Army and forfeited all pay and allowances to which he might have been entitled otherwise.
The undisputed testimony shows that during the period of their confinement each of the three plaintiffs became monitors for the “forced study groups,” the sessions of which the prisoners were compelled to attend. Armed guards attended these sessions. The programs included lectures picturing what were declared to be the bad aspects of life in the United States as contrasted with idyllic life under communism. As monitors, they procured and distributed propaganda literature, and threatened to turn in names of any prisoners who refused to read and discuss favorably these propaganda handouts.
Each of the plaintiffs made tape recordings which were used as broadcasts and over the camp public address system. Each of them wore Chinese uniforms and were permitted to attend meetings outside the camp. The details of the plaintiffs’ consorting, fraternizing and cooperating with their captors and the devious ways in which they sought favors for themselves, thus causing hardship and suffering to the other prisoners, are set out in our findings 7 to 30, inclusive.
Two of Bell’s recordings were broadcast over the Peiping radio, stating among other things that on the orders of his platoon leader, his men had killed North Korean prisoners of war, and that President Truman was a war monger. In written articles for the camp newspaper he alleged that American troops had committed atrocities and he personally had been ordered to kill women and children and not to take prisoners of war, and that if given the opportunity he would run a tank over the President’s body.
Bell was paid money to write these articles. He also delivered lectures before his company and to the camp on American aggression. He appeared voluntarily in a motion [253]*253picture and appeared in bi-monthly plays. He stated that if given a weapon he would fight against the United States. He sold food intended for the sick to other prisoners of war. By making reports to the Chinese, he caused one man to be bayonetted and others to be placed in solitary confinement.
Cowart did many similar things, wrote propaganda articles accusing American soldiers of atrocities and of using germ warfare. He drew posters and cartoons for the enemy, acted in plays, walked and talked with the Chinese officers, guards and interpreters, lived part of the time at Chinese regimental headquarters, stated he hated America, desired to study in China and to return to the United States in five years to help in the overthrow of the government.
Griggs did many similar things, attended enemy parties, visited Chinese headquarters frequently, referred to the Chinese as comrades, was accorded special privileges, made broadcasts, signed leaflets, wrote articles accusing the American soldiers of atrocities and declared the United States had used germ warfare.
These and many other acts of perfidy are abundantly proved by the record and are nowhere denied either in the pleadings or in the evidence. The record does not disclose any suggestion whatever of brainwashing. As a matter of fact, the record justifies the conclusion that at all times these men did these acts voluntarily for the purpose of helping themselves, in complete disregard of the effect it might have on the treatment of their fellow prisoners. The record does not indicate a touch of loyalty either to their compatriots or to their country after the period they were taken prisoners of war.
The defendant produced at the trials as witnesses certain Army staff officers who testified authoritatively that the United States did not authorize the use of germ warfare in Korea, did not ship any materials or equipment to Korea for that purpose, and received no requests for such materials or equipment. Rather than have this testimony remain in the record as evidence, the plaintiffs’ counsel stipulated that neither the United States nor any of the United Nations forces engaged in germ warfare in Korea. In view of this stipulation and concession, the commissioner sustained plaintiffs’ objection to this part of defendant’s testimony but per[254]*254mitted it to remain in the record as defendant’s offer of proof under Rule 41 (c).
In reference to plaintiff Bell’s statement, as shown in finding 14, that the American troops had injected poison gas into the blood of communist prisoners of war on a ship, plaintiffs’ counsel stipulated at the trial that this had not been done.
After the Korean armistice, which was signed July 27, 1953, and prisoner repatriation had begun on August 5,1953, each of the plaintiffs refused repatriation and voluntarily elected to go to Communist China. After the plaintiffs were discharged on January 23,1954, they filed this suit for their pay during the period indicated.
R.S. 1288, 10 U.S.C. § 846, supra, was enacted in 1814. Numerous statutes have been enacted and committee reports made since that time. These latter statutes, including sections 1002, 1006, and 1009, supra, of the legislation entitled the Missing Persons Act, as amended, cover the cases here presented. In fact, not only the language of the acts themselves, but. the committee reports at the time these sections were enacted clearly show that but for this Missing Persons Act there would be no basis of a claim for compensation.2
It will be noted that section 1002, as quoted in the footnote, states in effect that any person determined to be “interned in a foreign country, captured by a hostile force, beleaguered or besieged shall, for the period he is officially carried or determined to be in any such status, be entitled” to. pay and allowances. (Emphasis supplied.) Section 1006 states in effect that when it is officially reported that a person missing under the conditions specified is alive and m the hands of a hostile force or is interned in a foreign country he shall be paid.
Section 1009, which is a part of the same Act, states that “the head of the department concerned, or such subordinate as he may designate, shall have authority to make all determinations necessary in the administration of this Act, and for the purposes of this Act determinations so made shall be conclusive as to death or finding of death, as to any other [255]*255status dealt with by this Act. * * * Determinations are authorized to be made by the head of the department concerned, or by such subordinate as he may designate, of entitlement of any person, under provisions of this Act, to pay and allowances. * * * When circumstances warrant reconsideration of any determination authorized to be made of this Act the head of the department concerned, or such subordinate as he may designate, may change or modify a previous determination.” (Emphasis supplied.)
This modification in the language of the law completely changes the original act, which was unconditional. These changes in the original act leave not the slightest doubt that it was the intention of the Congress to authorize the head of the department or his agent to determine not only the status but the entitlement to pay.
It is inconceivable that the plaintiffs should be paid in the circumstances disclosed by the undisputed facts in this record. The fact is that essentially they were not confined. They were permitted to go outside the camp, were given practical freedom and in the essence of things they were no longer in the status of prisoners.
The Department, in denying plaintiffs’ claims, which were filed with the Department for pay, necessarily determined under the provisions and authority of the statute just quoted that during the period involved these plaintiffs did not have a status as prisoners, and were not entitled to pay under the quoted statutes. It was determined under the provisions of section 1009, quoted above, that they were not entitled to their pay. Such a finding was implicit in a determination that they should not be paid for the period following capture. This determination is fully supported by the record made here.3
[256]*256It is almost incredible that these men would ask for pay-in light of the conduct disclosed by the record.
In arriving at the intent of the Congress, it is necessary to construe all the provisions of the law together even if sometimes it seems not to be in strict accord with certain specific provisions when they are lifted from the body of the law and read out of context. Luna v. United States, 124 C. Cls. 52 (1952); Olney v. United States, 123 C. Cls. 285 (1952); United States v. Kirby, 74 U.S. 482 (1868); and Heydenfeldt v. Daney Gold etc. Co., 93 U.S. 634 (1876), from which we quote, at page 638, the following:
It is true that there are words of present grant in this law; but, in construing it, we are not to looh at any single phrase in it, but to its whole scope, in order to arrive at the intention of the makers of it; ... If a literal interpretation of any part of it would operate unjustly, or lead to absurd results, or be contrary to the evident meaning of the act taken as a whole, it should be rejected. There is no better way of discovering its true meaning, when expressions in it are. rendered ambiguous by their connection with other clauses, than by considering the necessity for it, and the causes which induced its enactment. (Emphasis supplied.)
The Kirby case involved an indictment of a sheriff and his posse under a statute which prohibited a willful obstruction of the United States mails. The sheriff had arrested a mail carrier who had been indicted for murder. In holding the statute not applicable, the Supreme Court, at page 487, made the following statement:
The common sense of man approves the judgment mentioned by Puffendorf, that the Bolognian law which enacted, “that whoever drew blood in the streets should be punished with the utmost severity,” did not extend to the surgeon who opened the vein of a person that fell down in the street in a fit. The same common sense accepts the ruling, cited by Plowden, that the statute of 1st Edward II, which enacts that a prisoner who breaks prison shall be guilty of felony, does not extend to a prisoner who breaks out when the prison is on fire — “for he is not to be hanged because he would not stay to be burnt.” And we think that a like common sense will sanction the ruling we make, that the act of Congress which punishes the obstruction or retarding of the pas[257]*257sage of tbe mail, or of its carrier, does not apply to a case of temporary detention of the mail caused by the arrest of the carrier upon an indictment for murder.
The defendant urges numerous defenses, including the claim that the statute which provided for pay “during captivity” is inapplicable because the plaintiffs were not really in captivity.
The Army regulations promulgated under the Missing Persons Act and in force at the time provide that the determination of the head of the Department, or his designated subordinate, as to status and as to entitlement to pay and allowances under this Act shall be conclusive. A.K. 85-1325, dated July 15,1953.
We held in the case of Moreno v. United States, 118 C. Cls. 30 (1950), that under the provisions of section 1009, supra, of the Missing Persons Act, the Department head was authorized to conclusively determine both the status and entitlement to pay under the Act.
To adopt the construction for which plaintiffs contend would lead the entire purpose of the law into an absurdity.
The plaintiffs admit that they gave aid and comfort to the enemy. The pleadings and stipulations establish that fact. They made it far more difficult for their compatriots who were there with them. They made tape recordings to be used for encouraging the enemy and for discouraging the people of their own country. One of them took pay for these admitted acts. The others were paid in various privileges and advantages. Who can say that these broadcasts and other acts did not cause loss of life in the struggle? Certainly it added to the hardships and suffering of their compatriots. The proof of these acts is overwhelming in the record. They were denied neither in the pleadings nor in the evidence.
For the purposes of a suit for civilian pay these facts are abundantly proven. For penalty or punishment purposes a trial by a court martial or for treason is perhaps necessary, but this is a civil court in which plaintiffs must establish their rights to affirmatively recover. In the face of these admitted facts the showing of a right to recovery fails. Neither the light of reason nor the logic of analysis of the [258]*258undisputed facts of record can possibly justify the granting of a judgment favorable to these plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs start up a difficult mountain to a summit of sheer legalism. Somewhere amid the mists and clouds along the way the spirit of the law completely disappears and its broken body lies in an unmarked spot under an avalanche of technical snow.
We cannot believe that any law can be as cold and lifeless as that. The law has for its primary purpose the ends of justice; otherwise it is as useless as a child trying to grasp a handful of sunlight. The law is a living thing, is not an end in itself but a means to an end. If it fails in this one thing it fails in everything.
To allow recovery in these cases would be to put a premium on dishonor and a penalty on courageous loyalty. We do not see how this court, or any court, can construe the law in such a fashion.
During the period involved here the defendant made certain payments for insurance and dependents. These were made largely for the benefit of the dependents of these soldiers and were not paid directly to the soldiers. The dependents in this record are not shown to have had any part in the actions of these unfortunate soldiers during the period involved here and are not parties to this suit. We do not believe that the ends of justice would be served by granting a judgment for the Government on its counterclaims.
The plaintiffs’ petition and the defendant’s counterclaims are dismissed in each of the cases.
It is so ordered.
Laeamoke, Judge, and Whitaker, Judge, concur.
Judgment for defendant was reversed by the Supreme Court, 366 U.S. 393, and, pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court on remand, the judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ petition was vacated and withdrawn on March 2, 1960, and the case referred to a trial commissioner of the court for further proceedings consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court.