Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-08-26
RECEIVING TWO SALARIES
Controller Tracewell's Important Decision
Regarding Rights of Government Employees.
Action of Auditor i'm DisallOwing Pay
ments by Mr.. Petty of Rock Creek
Park Commission Reversed.

| Controller Tracewell has rendered a de-
cision In the case of the appeal of J. T.
| Petty, disbursing agent, Rock Creek Park
commission, from the action of the auditor
| in the settlement Of his account under the
| appropriation for Rock Creek Park. Dis
| trict of Columbia" for the quarter ending
June 30. 1899.
The matter complained of is the disal-
| lowance by the auditor of payments made
| to w. A. Mcfarland, as follows: May 1.
| 1899, for services making examinations for
| bridge foundations, April q to %, 1899, Sc;
! June 1, 1899, for experimenting the sinking
| of test pits and examination for bridge
| foundations in Rock Creek Park. during
| the month of May, 1899, $50
These payments were disallowed by the
| auditor as being in violation of section 1765
| of the Revised Statutes.
The controller says:
Authority for the Work.
| lit is admitted that when the services
were rendered Mr.. Mcfarland held the po-
| sition of superintendent of the water de-
| partment. The employment was not made
| in writing, but 1 am informed by the dis
bursting agent that the work was done by
| direction of Captain Lansing H. Beach.
| executive officer of the Rock Creek Park
! commission In another letter he says:
The expenditure was approved by the
| commission, who also, Engineer Com
| missioner, stated that the supervision of
| the construction of the bridge did not in
| terfere with Mr. McFarland's duties as
superintendent of the water department.
ut is clear that Mr.. Mcfarland was an
officer in branch of the public service
within the meaning OF section 1865. Re-
vised Statutes He was employed and rem
dered service under the authority of Con-
| gress, and his salary was fixed by law at
S1,SO. GO Stat. 4o3; 1 Lawrence Comp.
Dnn Init ~
| 513) 1t therefore remains to be considered
| whether the payments in question were
| additional pay, extra allowance COM
pensation' within the meaning of that sec
| ton
| Subject of Much COntrOversy.
while the provisions of section 1863
| have been the subject of much controversy
and have received from the courts some
| what varying constructions. it seems clear
| ly settled that the section absolutely for
| bids extra compensation or additional pay
| to the classes of persons named therein for
| any service or duty whatever connected
| with or growing out of the office or posi-
| ton held by them. unless it is authorized
by law and the appropriation therefor
| plicitly states that it is for such additional
| compensation
| 1--WE are of the opinion that taking
| these sections 1I63, 1854 and 1865, Revised
| Statutes) all together the purpose of this
| legislation was to prevent person holding
! an olllCt OF dppDii lot WHICH the law
| provides "A definite compensation by way of
salary or otherwise. which is intended to
! cover az the services which, such Off
| Ger, he may be called upon to render. from
| receiving extra compensation, additional
| allowances or pay for other services which
| may be required of him either by act of
| Congress or by order of the head of his
| Department. or in any other mode, added
| to or connected with the regular duties of
| the place which he holds Omitted States
| agt. Saunders, 100 L. s., 1863.
| 1T is also well settled that the prohibit
| lions of the section do not apply to cases of
| separate and distinct offices, positions or
employments which have no affinity for
| or connection with the official duties of the
| Comp. Dec. -. In the Saunders case,
| supra the Supreme Court said:
They (the sections under consideration
! have no application to the case of two dis
| tinct offices, places or employmentS, each
| of which has it's own duties and its own
| compensation. which offices may both be
| held by one person at the same time. In
| the latter case he is in the eye of The law
| two officers. or holds two places or APP
| pontments, the functions of which are sep
arate and distinct. and according to all de-
| cisions. he is entitled to recover the two
compensatioHs.
Payments Not Unlawful.
considered In the light of these decis-
IONS / am of the opinion that the pay
ments in question were not made in viola
l
or of section 8 of the act of June %, 1914
Us Stat. 1000. The services rendered by Mr..
Mcfarland were not added to or connected
with his regular duties as superintendent
of the water department. He was not Or
dered by the Commissioners any
one representing them to perform the same,
nor were they such as could have been re-
uuired of him in the position he he'd. 1t
Is true that he was employed by Captain
Beach who is Engineer Commissioner of
the District but it must be assumed that
this was done in the latter's capacity as
executive officer of the Rock Creek Park
commission or representing the board Of
control of the park. since as District Off
Ger, per Sc, he has no control over the
work in the park or the appropriation made
therefor. AS superintendent of the water
department Mr.. Mcfarland had duties
to perform in connection with the building
of bridge for Rock Creek Park, and his
connection with this work must be consid-
cred distinct employment, for which he
was entitled to compensation.
The auditor in making the diSallowance
refers to the decision made in the Hins-
dale case 6 Comp. Dec, 24D. but the de-
termina ton of that case depended an
case Hinsdale. clerk of class in the
general land office, was detailed for the
duty of examining certain surveys of In
dian reservations made under the directio
and control of the general land office. The
extra compensation was claimed, not for
a distinct employment outside his regular
position but for services pertaining strict
ly to his position. which had been required
of him by the head of his department, who