## Facts

- Charles M. Blake served as a U.S. Army post chaplain.
- On December 24, 1868, Blake sent a letter to the Secretary of War complaining of mistreatment and stating that, if relief could not be obtained, he wished to tender his resignation as chaplain.
- Military superiors forwarded the letter with endorsements recommending acceptance.
- The Secretary of War submitted the matter to the President, who accepted Blake’s resignation effective March 17, 1869.
- Blake promptly attempted to retract the resignation by telegram, asserting he did not intend to resign, but was informed the acceptance was final.
- The President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, later appointed Alexander Gilmore to the same chaplaincy, displacing Blake.
- Blake received no chaplain pay from April 28, 1869 to May 14, 1878; in 1878 the President declared Blake’s resignation “void” on the ground of Blake’s mental incapacity when he wrote it.
- Blake sued the United States in the Court of Claims for back pay; the Court of Claims dismissed, and Blake appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the President may remove or supersede an army officer in peacetime by appointing, with Senate confirmation, a successor, notwithstanding a statute providing that officers shall not be dismissed in time of peace except pursuant to a court-martial sentence.
2. Whether Blake remained legally in office and entitled to salary after a successor’s appointment and confirmation, given his claim that his resignation was void due to mental incapacity.
3. Whether any salary claim for the period preceding the successor’s appointment was barred by the statute of limitations.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Blake’s petition.
- The Court held that the President has power to remove or supersede an officer of the army or navy by appointing, with Senate advice and consent, that officer’s successor.
- The Court concluded the peacetime court-martial statute restricted unilateral executive dismissals, not removal accomplished through the constitutional appointment process.
- Once Gilmore was duly appointed and confirmed, Blake was lawfully displaced and was not entitled to salary thereafter.
- Any claim to salary for any earlier interval was time-barred because Blake’s asserted incapacity had ended long before suit was filed.

## Legal Principles

- Absent a clear statutory tenure restriction, removal authority may be exercised through the appointment of a successor made by the President with Senate confirmation.
- A statute limiting “dismissal” in peacetime is construed to restrain unilateral executive discharge, not displacement resulting from a valid appointment of a successor under Article II.
- The lawful appointment and confirmation of a successor vacates the incumbent’s office by its own force, ending the incumbent’s right to compensation for the position.
- Statutes of limitations bar back-pay claims where the disabling condition preventing suit has ceased and the claimant delays beyond the limitations period.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a Senate-confirmed appointment of a successor is an effective mechanism to remove an incumbent military officer, and that the displaced officer cannot recover salary after supersession; any earlier pay claim was also untimely.


Blake v. United States, 103 U.S. 227 (1880)