The Washington times., 1902-07-30

lie Printer. and consequently beyond the
jurisdiction Of courts and accounting cf-
fcers Whether these leaves OF absence
ran from Monday morning % Saturday
night. whether they were for al entire
week or a calendar month. uo more cor
Germ the courts and ting oGics.s
than whether they were granted in warm
weather or in cold.
THE Public Printer must determine
the times and seams and periods OF
absences as the needs or eXiseGCies OF
his department may permit. But at this
point his discretion stops. and the SD
pervisicn Of the accounting officers be
gins. He has jurisdiction Of attend
Groe and work. TO grant leaves Of alb
sCnce or to refuse them. but not to in
crease wages or vary or augment the
legal liabilities of the Government.
Whether he grant leaves of absence By
the month or the week, or for a singh
day, or for a designated number Of days.
CT not at all, will not affect the wages
of the employees; wages are not within
the scope Of his discretion and will con-
tine precisely the same as Il no leave
of absence had been granted or refused.
This subject OF the leave of absence
laws is not wages, but ~ork; they au-
l:IDl lLC llit uDliS llittL " itSStAA
work; they do not authorize him to
augment pay
1T should be noted that an increased
rate OF pay and consequently an in
creased rate cf communication has since
been authorized but this tact does not
affect the reasoning OF the court.
No Pay for Sundays.
Il have quoted at length from the
opinion of the court, which seems 50
clear and convincing that the executive
or accounting officers should hesitate
before going contrary TO the construc-
tion therein maintained. The changes
made in the leaves of absence laws in
the Government Printing Once since
the opinion was rendered do not affect
the principle therein decided-that It
was not the purpose of the statute
granting leaves with pay to thereby
either lower or raise the wages OF
those affected thereby, and that where
an employc in the Government Print
ing Office Is granted a certain leave of
absence he is entitled to the same pay
during such period of absence as If he
had not been on leave. This con-
struction is recognized In the Ian
guage of the latest act. authorizing.
as it does, pay during leave at the
same rate of pay received dur
ing the time in which said leave was
earned. The rate of pay received by
any per diem employe or piece worker
in the Government Printing Office for a
period of time during which one or more
Sundays intervene does not include pay
for those Srndays
Following, therefore, the decision OF
the Court of Claims In the Harrison
case, supra. / must hold that the act
under consideration does not affect
wages. but work. and does not give to
you any right to pay to employees OF the
Government Printing OfCe for Sundays
intervening in any periods of leaves of
absence grated to them.
Pay Allowed for Holidays.
"It will be noted that | have said
nothing about payment for holidays oc-
curing during leaves OF absence, al
though your question included them.
This omission was intentional, because
holidays occurring during leave of alb
sence stands upon different basis from
payment for Sundays. This question
was not before the court In the Harri
son case. but in the light of the reason
ing In that case II is not difficult to infer
what their decision would have been
had one or more holidays interviewed
during the period of leave granted the
claimant In that case.
AT the date OF that decision there
were various laws upon the statute
books which, with subsequent laws. were
practically re-enacted as section 46 of
the act of January IL. 1895, supra, which
Is as follows: The employees of the
Government Printing Office shall be al
lowed the following legal holidays with
pay, TO wit: The first day of January.
the I'D day of February. the 18th day OF
July. the 25th day of December. lnau-
guration day, memorial day, labor's
holiday. and such day as may be desig
mated by the President of the United
States as day OF public fast or thanks
giving
Following the reasoning of the Court
of Claims in the Harrison case. It seemi
clear that the holidays named are prac
tically made working days so far as
pay is concerned, and that it can make
no difference in computing the pay due
to an employe whether the holidays fall
in during a period OF service or during
a period of leave, and that he Is en-
titled to pay for any OF the holidays
named, If included In the leave period.
not by virtue of the leave of absence
law. but because II is a day for which
he would have been paid II not on leave.
This is in harmony with the ruling OF
the Court OF Claims. which gives TO an
employe of the Government Printing Of
fee the same pay during period of
leave as he would have been entitled TO
had no leave been taken, and would ex-
cept the legal holidays named from the
force Of the remainder OF this decision" ,
The question was submitted to Comp
troIler Tracewell a few weeks ago by a
committee from the Bookbinders' Union |
Of the Government Printing Office. which |
later laid the question before Public |
Printer Palmer. The latter requested
decision from the Comptroller.