Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1902-07-29
Controller Matthew's Ruling.

SOuLIO1lSI 4AdttaSWS> huunR.
'In considering the then existing Iegisla-
ton Controller Matthews, in a letter to the
public printer. dated May IS, 1899, held that
If an employee has been granted leave for
any period, not to exceed thirty DAYS
manifestly he should be paid the exact
amount he would have received if he had
remained at his desk, and no more
If this decision Is correct the answer to
your question is clear. The compensation
of employees during leave Of absence de-
pendS, not upon the number Of consecutive
days in the leave, but upon the number of
working days by which his pay is regu-
lated, and hence Sundays must be excluded
from the payment in all cases of per diem
employees and piece workers. This Is the
s1st OF the foregoing decision Of the first
controller, and, although he gives no reason
FOR the ruling therein made, his meaning is
reasonably clear.
Court Of Claims Decision.
1T Is not necessary, however, to rely
upon this naked ruling In determining the
law Of this case. The same question was
before the Court of Claims in Harrison agt
United States, supra. where it was elabo-
rately discussed and decided by the full
court without a dissenting opinion The
statement Of the question and the conclu-
sion of the court may be briefly stated by
quoting from the syllabus of the case:
Certain statutes provide that the en-
ployes Of the government printing office
be allowed a leave Of Absence with pay,
not exceeding thirty days in each fiscal
year., or a pro rata leave to those sery-
ing fractional parts of a year." under
such regulations and at such times as the
public printer may Designate An en-
ploye takes his leave of absence and is
paid for all working days occurring. during
the leave He seeks to recover for Sun
days.
Hold Leave of absence will not af-
feet the wages Of the employee If time
worker he will receive precisely what he
period Of absence. If piece worker the
law commutes his earnings at $500 a day,
and he Is entitled to what time workers re-
ceive during the same period.
In Diminishing the petition Of the claim
ant the court in their opinion say: In the
present case the claimant was a compositor
III the government printing office from July
10. 1888. to September 25 1889, and was
employed sometimes on time work and
sometimes piece work. At the termi-
nation of the fiscal year. the Both Of June,
1889, the leave Of absence which the public
printer might allow to him for the frac-
tional part Of the fiscal year then ending
was 253s days. On the 18th Of August he
was granted a leave Of absence from the
14th Of August to the Sth Of September,
being for 25s consecutive days. On the
25th of September he ceased to be an en-
ploye in the government printing Office.
For the period Of 25B days of absence
the claimant was paid precisely what he
would have been paid II he had continued
at work; or, to state it in another way,
he received for his absence from August
IA to September = precisely what other
men who remained In the printing Office
received for their work. He now seeks to
recover more. During his leave Of absence
there were four Sundays; on those four
Sundays the office was closed; the men
did not work, and consequently were not
paid: and the closing Of the office and the
non-payment of the men when not at work
were according to the usage Of the estab-
lishment. The first question, therefore,
which Is presented by the case Is whether
the words Of the statute, "a leave Of abb
sence with pay" refer to the pay which
the recipient would have received during
the period of absence If he had not been
absent, or whether they mean that he
should receive pay during hts absence for
Sundays. !. e.. for days which were not
working days. and for which the other
men not on leave received no pay.
1.-The acts Of 1885 and 1888 provide that
the public printer. in his discretion, may
grant a leave Of absence which shah not
exceed thirty days in a fiscal year with
pay" Whether this pay" shall be the
pay which the employee would have re-
ceived II he had not received a leave of
absence, or whether 1t shall be pay for
every day Of the leave, Is the question to
be answered. In giving an Interpretation
to the enactments the court cannot con-
fine its inquiries to q single isolated case.
but must ascertain and define the intent Of
Congress by pushing the inquiry to the
full extent OF the scope and operation of