Evening star., 1899-02-03
Sundays and Legal Holidays Should
Be Counted.
OPINION BY CONTROLLER TRhCBWBLI
Interpretation of Statutes by At
torneys General.
CA Sc IN POINT QUOTED

aiid tifiiioSSS oi tHS various departments oil
| the government The document is a long
! one. completely covering all the various
points that have been raised in the long
consideration of the subject. In the course
| of the opinion it will be seen that the con-
| troller finds that the construction placed
upon the law permitting the heads of de-
partments to grant thirty days annual and
| thirty days sick leave with pay in any one
year to each clerk and employe is clearly
right and fully supported by the weight OF
modern authority. He decides. however
that Sundays and intervening legal holidays
must be included in such leave holding that
| If Congress had intended to exclude Sundays
and such holidays it would have used ap-
| propriate language to evidence this inten-
ton in the act.
The opinion begins as follows:
EDWARD A. Moseley, secretary and dis
bursting agent of the interstate commerce
commission. submits the following:
" A question has arisen regarding the
amount paid an emp!oye of this commits
sion who has been absent more than sixty
days including Sundays and days declared
required by law to count Sundays and days
! declared legal holidays against the en-
ployes time. or is this matter in the dis
erection of the commission
"Ihe exact question of which. / appre-
hend, a decision is sought might be formu-
lated as follows: In computing the annual
| sick leave of "a clerk or employe under
| existing law, should Sundays or legal holi-
| days occurring during absence under such
leave be charged against such absentee?"
Congressional legislation regarding ceri-
| cal leaves IS recited and the controller pro-
ceeds:
Scope of the Inquiry.
THE present inquiry is, therefore, neces-
sarily restricted to the proper and legal
construction of the meaning of the Ian
guage:
THAT the head of any department NAV
grant thirty days annual leave with pay
| in any one year to each clerk or enploye
And provided further that where some
member of the immediate family of clerk
or employe IS afflicted with contag agious
disease and requires the care and attend
ance of such employe, or where his or her
presence in the department would leopard
fze the health of fellow clerks and in ex-
ceptional and meritorious cases. where
clerk or employe is personally i'll, and
where to limit the annual leave to thirty.
! days in any one calendar year would work
peculiar hardship, it may be extended. In
the discretion of the head of the depart
ment, with pay, not exceeding thirty days
in any one case or in any one calendar
year
This language should and must be con-
sidered in connection with the language
upon the same subject found in the acts of
March J. 1883 and March 3 1893.
I'm far as l have been able to ascer-
| tain judicial Interpretation has been
placed upon the language of either of the
acts of Congress making such provision
for leaves Of absence by any court.
Views of Attorney General.
But we are, however, not entirely without
! light upon the subject of inquiry. On the
10th of February, 1894, Richard Olney, the
then Attorney General, great lawyer and
a learned jurist, in response to an inquiry
of the Secretary of the Navy, propounded
to him as the correct Interpretation of
the act of March 3, 1893, said inquiry hav-
ing been propounded by the Secretary of
the Navy under authority of section :}l,i.
Revised Statutes, which reads, The head
of any executive department may require
the opinion of the Attorney General any
questions of law arising in the administra-
ton of his department. said
" You also ask me whether, in computing
the annual leave and sick leave under the
first proviso, Sundays and holidays occur
ring during absence should be charged
against the absentee. Upon this question
am informed that the practice of the diff
ferent departments has not been uniform
No ard, therefore, is afforded by depart
mental practice in the solution of this
question. 1t has been the practice of this
department to charge Sundays and holidays
against the absentee when they intervene
during the period of absence. That is. if
an emplONe obtain leave of absence from
Monday to Saturday, inclusive, he is not
charged with any Sunday as part of his
period of absence. If. however his leave is
from Saturday to Saturday, inclusive. he is
charged with the Sunday included in that
period. In the absence either of general
and uniform departmental practice. or of
specific direction from Congress. it is my
opinion that the practice of this depart
ment is the correct Interpretation of the
law. Unless otherwise specially stated
statutory provisions for notice, etc, of
given number of days are usually consid-
cred to include Sundays and holidays in the
count. at least unless the period of notice
is very short Statutes therefore. often
specifically except them. This conclusion
is somewhat strengthened by the fact that
the statutory annual leave is made thirty
days. or as near as may be, one-twelfth of
the calendar. 1t would seem to be the con-
gressional intent that each employe might
take months vacation, the length there
of being expressed in days on account of
the varying lengths of the calendar months.
d" Your last question is. therefore, to be
answered in the affirmative" GO Opin. A.
G.. 71S.
Further, the 11th of May last the
present Attorney General, also a very able
lawyer, being called upon by the Secre
tary of the Treasury to give his official
opinion to whether Sundays and days de-
clared to be holidays by law or executive
order should be included in the annual leave
to be granted under the terms of the act
approved March IL. 1898. his attention be-
ing specifically directed also to the acts of
nection with the inquiry as to the proper
Interpretation of the act of March Il, 1898,
said:
- 4 think the first question propounded in
your communication is answered substan-
TALLY by the Attorney General in opin-
ion rendered February 10, 1894 GO Opin.,
71S).
In the act of March 3, 1883, in provid-
ing for the hours of labor, Sundays and
holidays so declared by law or executive
order were excepted. This was the case in
the act approved March ), 1893 and also in
the act approved March 10. 1SaS So, the
laws in existence at the time of the rendi-
ton of the opinion above referred to Were
substantially the the last act of
Congress, which is the act of March To-
1898
The opinion above cited was given in
response to request for construction of
section of the Legislative appropriation act
of March 3, 1S93 relating to leaves of alb
sence. In this opinion is the following
Here follows the opinion of Attorney Cen
eral Olney above set out)
Continuing, the Attorney General said:
Section of the act approved March H.
1895, Is substantially the same section
5 of the act of March 3. 1893, and the above
opinion is sufficient answer to your first
question