Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-08-29
Controller Tracewell Decides
Miller Case
WITH LITTLE COMMENT
OF FACTS BY PUBLIC
PRINTER PALMER.
Was Notified in Writing Of His Dis
charge-Informed of Suspen-
sion Verbally.

Controller Tracewell in a decision to Pub
lie Printer Palmer has ruled that W. A.
Miller, whose case at the government print
Ing office has attracted so much attention,
is not entitled to pay during the time of
his absence from the printing office.
The controller says there is no question
about this and dismisses the subject in an
unusually brief style
In several communications to the con-
troller the public printer said:
Mr.. w. A. Miller was suspended from
May IA to II, 1903 inclusive; was discharg-
ed on May 49, he was reinstated by d.
rection OF the President July 13, and re-
ported for duty July g. total of sixty
three days absence from the Office.
AT the rate of pay Mr.. Miller was re-
ceiving when discharged this time would
amount to s403 20, for which he has made
claim. On May 1s he was paid for twenty
six and half days leave of absence less
three Sundays. at $40 per day G15O. 4O),
leaving a balance of $352. So
Il have the honor to request Won To in
form me whether, in view Of the facts cited
above. l am authorized to pay Mr. Miller
his salary for the time he was absent from
the office, and. If so. should the twenty-six
and half days leave of absence be de-
ducted2
Notified of Discharge.
Mr.. Miller was notified verbally of his
suspension. Nothing was said as to wheth-
er said suspension would be with or with
out pay.
He was notified in writing of his dis
charge from the Office the notice stating
that the said discharge was to take effect
at the expiration of any leave of absence
which might be found due him, and the
payment was made at the time of his
discharge.
"The last days pay for services received
by Mr.. Miller was May 13, 1903. He was
which included time from May IA to June
10 Q2m), 1903. This period includes the
days Of suspension preceding dismissal"
Your inquiry. based upon the forego-
are you authorized to pay Mr. Miller for
the 63 days he was absent from the office,
VIZ: from May IA to July 20, 1903 and If
SO. should the sum of $1,000 be deducted
wages which you paid to him as pro rata
leave OF absence pay earned by him in the
fiscal year 1903?
Was Permanent Employe.
Mr.. Miller was a permanent employe
of your office distinguished from a tenn
porary one. and at his discharge or resie-
nation from your Office during the fiscal
year you were authorized to pay him and
he was entitled to receive the pro rata
leave of absence pay which he had earned
during such fiscal year. which, If he had
remained In your service during the next
fiscal year, he would only have been en-
titled to use as leave with pay. Had he
remained on the rolls of your Office as an
employe you would not have been author
earned in the fiscal year 1903.
Mr.. Miller. under your statement of
facts, and under the law authorizing his
employment, was not an officer of the gov
ernm6nt In sense. either CT
or statutory, but merely an employe there
or, who, in order to be paid the daily
wages agreed upon, must prerequisite
OF such payment perform the service for
which payment is proposed to be made
"A different rule obtains as to an officer
OF the government, who usually is entitled
to the compensation fixed by law or regu-
lation of his office. regardless of the per
formance of the duties thereof.
Exceptions to the Rule.
There are certain exceptions even to
this rule, such as clerks In the executive
departments. who are required to perform
certain hours of labor. but 1t has been
held by the courts, as to this latter class
of officers, that if they are wrongfully pre-
vented from the performance~of their duties
and are ready and willing to perform them
they may recover In such cases. their
salaries.
'As to this latter class, however. IT has
been uniformly held by the courts that the
person having the power to appoint has
the power of removal, and that the uues-
ton of the right or wrong of such removal
Is one into which they cannot inquire.
IF the courts are precluded from max
ing such inquiry I do not see how 1 or any
other executive officer can go into such
question.
your authority to employ Mr.. Miller was
conferred by the act of January 12 1896
'The annual appropriation acts since that
time made for the support of your Office
have not materially altered the authority
thus given.
Cannot Pay Salary While Absent.
II have no doubt as to the fact that you
are not authorized to pay Mr.. Miller any
sum for wages after the date Of his dis
charge until his reappointment in your
Office
II am not so clear as to the time COW
cred by his suspension from work, but,
on the whole, think 1t covered by the prin-
ciple above enunciated He performed no
labor during such time The appointing
power. II authorized to totally remove an
employe, certainly has the authority to re-
move for limited time or suspend
ION the whole, I do not think YOU are
authorized to pay Mr.. Miller anything in
addition to what you have paid him for
his services. before the date Of his re-em-
ployment and during the period covered by
vo,lr ulYeSt{ou