Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1917-07-07
EXPLAINS RULING !.
ON SALARY RAISES
Controller Defends His AppIi-
cation of Increase Law to 4
Per Diem Employees. !
CANNOT MODIFY DECISION

III response TO crtt1clsms expressed
by members of Congress concerning
the ruling of the controller Of the cur
rency as to the horizontal 5 and 10 per
cent raise in pay as affecting per diem
workers for the government, the con-
troller today made public letters which
he had written setting forth the rea-
sons why he had made this ruling. He
believes. he says. that the law should
be construed not as to what is the per
diem rate of salary or wage in a given
case. but what is the per diem equiva-
lent of per diem employees salary at
the rates fixed in the law. 1920 and
800 per annum.
For this reason he takes 1898 n per
day for the 10 per cent increase and
SIS per day for the per cent increase
as the dividing lines. rather than Civ
ing the increase figures on what each
man actually receives per diem.
The communications were sent to
Representative Richard Olney. I'd. who
protested on behalf OF employees of tts
navy yard at Boston. and to Reprs-
sentative John l. Nolan, critic of tao
decision of the office.
Controllers Explanation.
To Representative OIney. rontr oller
Warwick writes that he cannot III ,dify
his decision at the request of a me mber
of Congress. But he is willing 10 eA-
plain and delivers himself. lastly of
this consideration:
II gave much time and careful con-
sideration to this matter before ths
decision was rendered. and am satisfied
that the ruling is AS liberal as any
recognized principles of statutory cons
struction will Justify" He explains his
point of view:
Per diem employees do not receive
salaries or wages at fixed rates per
annum, as stated in your letter. II they
did. they could be required to work sos
days in the year and would be prohibits
ed by law from receiving any addi-
tional or overtime pay. There can be
no justification in law for the conten-
ton that either the actual or the esti-
mated amount of per diem employees
compensation for year Is his annual
rate of compensation. The only theory
then, upon which these percentage IN
creases can be allowed to per diem ems
ployes Is that Congress in fixing only
per annum rates OF compensation as
the basis for determining whether. ana
paid, intended that a days pay at said
per annum rates should be the basis TOT
determining a per diem employees right
to the increase. One days pay OF per
annum employe has been nxea oy law
at one-thirtieth. of one-twelfth OF his
per annum salary GA Stat 1881
How Law Is Construed.
'In constituting this law the question
for determination Is not as to what ID
the per annum equivalent Of the per
diem rate Of salary or wages In given
case, but as to what is the per diem
equivalent of a per annum employees
salary at the rates fixed IN the law
| namely. $1,000 and $1,000 per annum.
This is a matter Of statutory construc-
ton or Interpretation to be determined
| from the language Of the statute by
| the application of recognized rules and
principles and without reference to the
terms or conditions of the employment
| Of any particular class of employees.
when considered in this manner there
can be no doubt that these rates are
$3.50 Ia and IS. respectively.
Therefore. in applying the law TO any
given class Of per diem employees it
must be construed as though 1t read as
follows:
| "'s increased compensation at
the rate of ten per centum per annum
or wages at the rate per an
mum Of less than $1,000 or at the rate
per diem Of less than 1888 1-3. and in
creased compensation at the rate OF
per centum per annum to such employees
who receive salaries or wages
at a rate of not more than $1,000 per
annum, or IS per diem.
THE fact that this law when so con-
strued may result in certain inequali-
ties cannot justify an. arbitrary con-
struction that might result in greater
| benefit to a particular class.
Mare Island Navy Yard Case.
Representative Nolan represented the
complaint of pattern makers of the
Mare Island navy yard. at San Fran
cisco. He asked Controller Warwick
to rescind his ruling. Controller War
wick replies practically in the same
words as to Representative Olney, and
adds:
'"These increases have been provided
in the different appropriation acts for
civilian employees in practically every
branch of the government service. Many
per diem employees In the service are
paid regularly for S65 days in the year. \
All per diem employees may receive
pay for 365 days, and it cannot be +
known that any class of per diem en-
ployes will work or be pad for no more
and no less than 312 or 313 days during
the fiscal year 1918.
For reasons herein stated the num-
Der of days an employee may work or be
paid for during the year can have no
bearing on the question"