Case ID: us-ct-cl_3/html/0265-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Peck, J:,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gilman Kirby v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      The claimant is a laborer employed by and on the roll of employés under the Commissioner of Public Buildings. He is also one of the four laborers in the Capitol at Washington authorized by Congress. The First Comptroller, nevertheless refuses to him the additional compensation given to all civil officers and employés in the office of the Commissioner by the joint resolution of February 22, 1868.
    The construction given "by this court to the joint resolution of February 22, 1867, (14 Stat. L., p. 569,) in the case of James Stone, (ante, p. 260,) is applicable to and governs the case of a laborer in the Capitol in the city of Washington, appointed by the Commissioner of Public Buildings. But when the amount of salary is not proved so that no data are furnished to the court upon which the 20 per cent, addition can be computed, the case will be restored to the general docket for further proof in that particular.
    Mr. B. B. French and Mr. J. Daniels for the claimant:
    The petitioner claims that he is entitled, under the joint resolution of Congress “ giving additional compensation to certain employes in the civil service of the United States,” approved February 28, 1S67, to the 20 per centum on his salary of $864 per annum, as fixed by law, inasmuch as said resolution provides that “ employds ” in certain departments, and in “ the office of the Commissioner of Public Buildings,” shall be allowed “ an additional compensation of 20 per centum on their respective salaries, as fixed by law, for one year and after the 30th day of June, 1866.”
    The said Kirby, being a laborer in the Capitol, was an employe in the office of the Commissioner of Public Buildings. Application was made to the First Comptroller for the 20 per cent., who decided that the petitioner was not entitled to it under the resolution.
    There were four laborers employed in the .Capitol.
    These laborers were regularly appropriated for up to March 2, 1867.
    The first regular appropriation is in the legislative, &e., appropriation act of March 3, 1863, in the following words, viz :
    '“For fourlaborers employed by the Commissioner of Public Buildings in the Capitol, (heretofore authorized by appropriation,) $2,400.” (12 Stat. L., p. 750.)
    The last appropriation of the same sum may be found in 14 Stat. L., p. 459.
    This sum gives the petitioner $600 per annum, which sum has been regularly increased by congressional legislation to $720 per annum, by adding 20 per cent, thereto, (13 Stat. L., p. 160; 14 Stat. L., p. 207.)
    Thomas J. Williams, esq., clerk in the office of Commissioner of Public Buildings, producing the register of appointments to office of persons by the Commissioner, swears that Gilman Kirby was appointed a laborer in the Capitol August 1, 1864, and was in office to March 2, 1867, and that he was in the Commissioner’s office every day.
    The Assistant Solicitor for the defendants.
   Peck, J:,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This petitioner was a laborer in the Capitol, appointed August 1, 1864, and was continued as such until the 2d of March, 1867, appointed by tbe Commissioner of Public Buildings, at a salary of , which was paid to him regularly by the said Commissioner. Claimant asks, in addition to his regular compensation, the 20 per cent, allowed by the joint resolution of February 22, 1867, giving additional compensation to certain employés in the civil service of the United States.

The proof shows, as in the case of James Stone, that the name of claimant was on the roll of employés in the office of the Commissioner of Public Buildings, and that he is one of the four laborers in the Capitol authorized by act of Congress.

This case also comes within the reasoning of the court as stated in-the case of James Stone; but there is no proof in the record to show what his compensation was, and, therefore, no data from which the 20 per cent, additional can be computed' by us. We, therefore, restore this case to the general docket for further proofs.