Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1881-01-31
THE H1ATTRR OF SALARY FoR
PLURAL OFFICES.


Va ZIG AtCec0AJS puDAAnueU III Tue 1UtcfptG
Reusnass Record and Customs Journal, volume
XVII, number 3, page 16. in reference to
the matter of salary for plural offices:
l. A collector of internal revenue, who is
also Commissioner of the United States, and
performs the duties of both offices, is en-
titled to the compensation authorized by
law for both.
2. The act of June 20, 1874, us Stats,
101 and l0S), does not prohibit the holding
of more than one office by the same
person.
An account has been received at this
Office from Edward g. Wade, for his ser
vices as Commissioner of the Circuit Court
of the United States for the District Of
Georgia, from May 4, 1880, to August z,
1880, (Revised Statutes 627, 1888, DOES. 2O26l,
On the 18th Of November, 1880, Mr. Wade
wrote to the Attorney General and also to
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
asking whether, In their opinion.
he had right to receive compensation as
Commissioner, in view of the fact that
he holds the Office OF Collector of Internal
Revenue, the salary for which exceeds
TWENTY-FIVE hundred dollars per annum,
Both letters have been referred to the First
Comptroller. They present the question
whether an individual holding two separate
and distinct offices, is entitled to the COM
pensation provided for each, when the com.
pensation for one Of them exceeds two
thousand five hundred dollars per annum.
Decision by William Lawrence, First
Comptroller:
Section 1863 Of the Revised Statutes d.
clares that "No person who holds an office,
the salary or annual compensation attached
to which amounts to two thousand five
hundred dollars, shall receive compensation
for discharging the duties of any other
office, unless expressly authorized by law"
(See also sections 1894 and 1865 r. 81
The construction heretofore given to this
section, when taken IN connection with the
various provisions of law on the same cub
ject matter, is that SIT does not prohibit
the holding Of more than one office, with
the salary Of each" (Herndon's case ante,
48; Is OPP, 307.)
In the cas- Of Talbot, who sued in the
Court of Claims, to recover salary at the
rate OF g., 600 per annum as a clerk in the
Attorney Generals office, from August ID
to September 80, 1868, the duties of which
clerkship be averred he had performed, In
addition to the duties of a clerkship
in the Treasury Department, for which
he had been paid a regular salary, the
court held that he was not entitled, paw
ment, being prohibited by the proviso In
section l, act OF September 30, 1850, as fol-
lows:
"That, hereafter, the proper accounting
officers OF the Treasu y, or other pay officers
of the United States, shall II no case allow
any pay to one individual fofl the salaries
OF two offices on account of having per-
formed the duties thereof at the same time"
@ Stat. at Large, $40; 10 Court els, 46)
But this proviso is not carried into the Re-
vised Statutes. In the case OF Converse VS..
the United States, which Is the leading case
on all questions Of additional compensation,
the Proviso was referred to by date, but the
court did not treat 1t as standing alone, and
did not, CONSIDER it as precludilg an allow
ance to q Collector Of Customs for services
performed outside OF the line of his regular
duties, pursuant to the lawful order Of the
Secretary OF the Treasury (2l How, 1853;
Opinions, S0). In an opinion given June
II, 1877, the Attorney General said
Sections 1903, 1764 and 1865 of the Re-
vised Statutes forbid any person who holds
an office, the salary or annual compensation
OF which amounts to the sum of SO, 500, to
receive compensation for diseharging the
duties Of any other office, unless expressly
authorized by law. They also direct that no
allowance or compensation shall be allowed
to any officer or clerk by reason of the
diecharge of duties which belong to sny
other officer or clerk in the same or any
other department; and that no officer in
any branch of the public service, or apy
other person whose salary, pay, or emolu-
ments, are fixed by law or regulations,
shall receive any additional pay, extra
allowance, or compensation In any form
whatever for the disbursement OF public
money, or for any other service or duty
whatever, unless the same is authorized bY
law, and tie appropriation therefor ex-
plicitly states that 1t is for such additional
pay, extra allowance, or compensation.
The construction which has been given to
these statutes Especially in the case Of
Converse vs.. the United States, 81 How,
n md nff>O .. u
to forbid officers holding one office to re-
ceive compensation for the discharge of
duties belonging to another, or additional
pay, extra allowance or compensation for
such other services or duties, where they
hold the commission of but single office,
and by virtue OF that Office, or in addition
to the duties Of that Office, have assigned to
them the duties of another Office. Accord
ing to that decision, however, ii an officer
holds two distinct commissions, and
two distinct Offices he may receive
the salary for EACH" Us OPP. Atty Gen. 3O7.
Certain officers are prohibited by law
from exercising the duties of Commissioner.
Section 62S, Revised Statutes, declares that
''no marshal or deputy marshal of any of
the courts of the United States shall hold
or exercise the duties of Commissioner of
any of the said COURTS" but Collectors of
Internal Revenue areEnot SO prohibited.
This and the laws against plurality of
Offices In specified cases and some other
provisions recognize the right to dual com
pensation In such cases as this. (Revlsed
Statutes, 1T, 17S, 179, 1899, 1928, 1924,
2O62, 9O69; act of March 8, 1875; IS Statutes,
512).
The general policy Of the government is
adverse to the allowance of double compen-
sation, or additional compensation, to any
person, but the laws now In force have not
been go drawn as to effectually prevent such
an allowance in all cases. For more than
twenty five years 1t has been the practice of
as Commissioners such Clerks Of the
United States Courts as have ap-
piled for the appointment, and
in some cases the net emoluments OF
Clerks, who are also Commissioners, have
exceeded 81, SEQ year; but this fact has not
precluded payment of Commissioners fees
to the same persons. The annual compen-
sation OF Collectors of internal Revenue is
fixed by Law and regulation. (Revised
Statutes 3145 Compensation of Commits
sioners OF the United States Circuit Courts
consist OF fees which are prescribed by law.
(Revised Statutes 84T) Appropriations are
made annually for payment of the compen-
sation OF Collectors and Commissioners.
The duties of said officers are separate and
distinct, and they are not incompatible with
each other.
A person appointed to the Office of Coilec-
tor OF Internal Revenue and also to the Of
fee Of Commissioner of Circuit Court, who
performs all the duties required of him in
both offices, is entitled to the compensation
which is expressly authorized by law for the
discharge of the duties pertaining to each
office, whether the compensation in either
of them exceeds 81, 500 per annum or not.
The act Of June 20, 1874, rs Statutes 101
and 1OS) does not interfere with this con-
clusion. 1t was not designed to prohibit a
plurality of officers.
Ordered, that the First Auditor state an
account in favor of the claimant. (Revised
Statutes 727. 72S, $40, 847, $50, 945, 9S1, 1854,
10l4, 1912, 1910, 1880, ITS, 1888, 1882, 1888,
1884, 1886, 1887, POPS, 2O26, 1852, 4O79, 4OSl,
Ife0sury Department, First Coanptroller's