Evening star., 1904-05-03
CONTROLLERS VIEW
Saturday Afternoon Not a
Legal Holiday
IN OFFICIAL SENSE
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NOT TO
BE PAID FOR THEM.
When They Occur in Their Leaves Of
Absence With Pay a Fur
ther Question.
IN OFFICIAL SENSE

portant decision relative to Saturday
half holiday in the District Of Columbia
The decision is to Sydney e. Smith, dis
bursting clerk of the War Department. A
clerk filed claim for pay for work on Sat
urday afternoons.
The question submitted to Controller
Tracewell by Mr.. Smith was as follows:
81 have the honor to submit herewith, for
your decision, question pertaining to the
payment of saiary to an employe OF TINS
department, while on annual leave OF alb
sence, with view to ascertaining whether
am authorized to pay the inclosed
voucher for nine days pay in February
amounting to $44.51.
Prom the inclosed correspondence 1t will
appear that the question at issue is as to
the method of computation Of the thirty
days annual leave, with pay, allowed to
employees in the executive departments.
1.-THE annual leave of thirty days granted
to this employe was extended for thirty
days without pay, and he resigned on the
expiration of the latter leave"
The Controllers Decision.
The controller refers to the act of March
Is. 1893, requiring seven hours of labor of
clerks, and then to the act Of February "a
1S99 as to thirty days annual leave, ex-
elusive of Sundays. The controller then
says:
"On January ., 1904, the Secretary OF
War by order fixed the hours of labor in
that department at from am. to 4:3O pm
each day in the week, including Saturdays
except during the months of July, August
and September, when the hours Of labor
on Saturdays are fixed at from am. to
l pm.
neither July, August nor September.
1.-The legal question raised by your In
| mir c q
the proviso to the act of February "A. 1879.
supra, when read In connection with the
order Of the Secretary of War. supra, and
the practical contemporaneous construction
given 1t by the heads of the several execu-
tive departments whose duty it was at the
time to interpret and enforce 1t.
1.-The law in force in the District of Co
lumbfa as regards legal holidays Is sec
tion 1889, District code, passed March 3,
1901, and it's amendment of June 80. 1902,
80 Stat, $40. They read: The following days
IN each year, namely, the first day OF Janu-
ary, commonly called New Year day; the
22d day of February. known as Washing
tons birthday; the Fourth of July; the Both
day of May. commonly called Decoration
day: the first Monday in September, known
as labor's holiday; the 25th day of Decem-
Der, commonly called Christmas day: ev-
cry Saturday after IL o'clock noon; any
day appointed recommended by the
President of the United States as a day of
public fasting or thanksgiving. and the day
of the Inauguration of the President, In
every fourth year, shall be holidays In the
District within the meaning of this section.
1.-The amendment reads: Amend section
1889 by striking out in the eighteenth and
nineteenth lines thereof the words within
the meaning of this section and inserting
in lieu thereof the words for all purposes.
Do Not Prohibit Labor.
"These laws do not prohibit labor in the
executive departments or in other places in
the District on these holidays There is no
other statute with which I am acquainted
which pretends to prohibit labor on these
days in the departments. AS matter of
usage in the District of Columbia, and es-
pecially in the executive departments, there
has been a cessation of ordinary labor on
all these holidays except on Saturday af-
ternoons. Since the date Of the order
supra, similar orders are operative in
the other departments which will close the
executive departments on Saturday after
Moons during the months of July, August
and September. ordinary labor in the ex-
ecutive departments by force of these or
ders will be suspended within the depart
ments on Saturday afternoons in July, Au-
gust and September of each year.
1.-THE heads of the departments while ex-
cluding the other holidays mentioned in
counting the thirty days annual leave with
pay to clerks and employees in the execu-
tive departments since the act of Febru-
ary "a, 1899, supra, went into effect, have
not excluded Saturday afternoons. They
were included, no doubt, for the reason that
the heads of the departments In their dis
cretion had not exempted Saturday after
moons from the hours of labor.
Meaning Of Congress.
Before the act of February "a, 1899, SUI
pra, all holidays occurring during an annual
| leave allowance with pay were necessarily
included. Congress by this act saw fit to
exclude legal holidays and Sundays in the
annual leave allowance with pay. 1t meant
those holidays and only those holidays.
where the clerk or employe on leave would
not have been required to work II he had
been at his post of duty. If 1t meant to
use the word legal holidays" in any other
sense, 1t would be placing absent clerks and
employees with pay in a better condition on
those Saturdays than their fellows who
were at their posts of duty and required
to work To the person on annual leave.
during his voluntary absence Saturday af-
ternoons. under a construction holding them
to be legal holidays within the purview of
the leave of absence statute, makes them
substantial holidays, with all that the word
by usage imports, but to those who are at
their posts of duty and required to work
the full number of working hours Satur-
day afternoons are in fact holidays in name
only.
Congress, when 1t excluded legal holi-
days in counting the thirty days annual
leave of absence with pay to clerks and en-
ployes, had full. knowledge that Saturday
afternoons, though declared holidays just
as Olher Gays are declared nOuudyS, were
not considered and treated as holidays in
the executive departments In the sense that
work was not required of clerks and en-
ployes on Saturday afternoons: and 1t is
but fair to construe the word legal holi-
days" in said act excluding holidays in the
count of leave, to mean the holidays as they
exist in fact, and not technical holidays,
such as usage has never exempted from
| the hours of labor.
This construction is fully justified by
| the doctrine announced in the case of Man.
ming ct al. agt. the Chesapeake and Poto-
| mac Telephone Company QSG U. s., 23S),
wherein 1t was substantially held that a
| law limiting the price to be paid for the
| use Of telephones in the District of Column
| bia referred to and meant only telephones
of certain class and character In use at
| the time the law was passed.
Legal Holidays.
Applying this doctrine to the case in
| question, 1t is my judgment that Congress
i l,xalid xad