Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1902-09-29
L A Dor DAY PAY
DECISION OF CONTROLLER
TRAcEWELL ON THE SUBJECT.
Whether Decorators Employed in the
Capitol Building Should Re-
ceive Compensation.

Controller Tracewell has decided a ques-
ton of peculiar interest relative to the pay
ment Of workmen at the Capitol for Labor
day. The decision is addressed to the Sec
rotary Of the Interior and Is as follows:
Treasury Department.
"Office Of Controller Of the Treasury
WASHINGTON, Sept. %. 1902.
II am in receipt OF your communication
Of September 20. 1902 referring to me the
correspondence and papers relative to the
employment Of -laborers to do decorating
under an agreement with Mr.. Joseph Rake
mann, made by Elliott Woods, superintend-
ent United States Capitol building and
grounds, and requesting my decision on the
question whether you are authorized 20 al
low pay to said laborers on Labor day, Sep
TENDER 1, 1902, or not
while 1t is not so stated, 1t Is clearly
the inference that they did not perform
service on that day. and such will be taken
as the fact The real question is. therefore.
whether the agreement authorized Rake
mann to pay his laborers for that day. and
II 1t did not. are they to be considered as
per diem employees Of the government
within the meaning of the act Of January 6.
1885 (23 Stat, 516), and as such entitled to
pay for Labor day, the same as other days,
Notwithstanding the fact that they did
not perform service on that day.
1T appears from the correspondence sub
mitted that an arrangement for decorating
Statuary Hall, United States Capitol. and
other painting was made by Elliott Woods.
superintendent. United States Capitol build
ing and grounds, with Joseph Rakemann.
ut was provided that Rakemann was to
employ and pay all necessary labor, such
employment being provided for in the fol-
lowing form: 1t Is provided that you drake
mann) will employ all necessary labor aud
pay the same, and that all persons en-
ployed will be paid standard market rates
for their services.
This proposition was accepted and the
work done under it.
ut will be seen by this that the employees
were the employees of Rakemann and not of
the government. Not being government
employees the act of January 6. 1885 (23
Stat, $50. providing that per diem en-
ployeS of tie government shall receive the
same pay for legal holidays as on other
days has no application to them, and as
there Is no other law which required Rake
mann to pay them for service on that day
unless they actually rendered service, you
would not be authorized to reimburse him
for payments made to his men for that day
unless 1t can be said that he was authorized
to make such payment by the terms Of his
contract which required him to pay the
standard market rates for their services
II know of no law or custom that in
cludes pay for Labor day as a part OF the
standard market rates Of pay for day la
borers, as assume these were. but II
1t Is the custom Of private employers In the
District of Columbia to pay laborers Of the
kind employed by Rakemann for Labor day,
whether they perform service on that day
or not. Rakemann would be authorized to
pay his men therefor, and you would be
authorized to reimburse him for his outlay
as a part Of the wages Of the men.
Il have, therefore. to advise you that II
It Is shown by satisfactory evidence that it
is the custom of private employers in the
District OF Columbia to include pay for
Labor day as part Of the standard market
rate for services Of the kind employed by
Rakemann you would be authorized to al
low him reimbursement for such pay, and
II such Is not the custom you would not be
make such payment