Case Name: William Saunders, appellee, v. The United States, appellants
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1874-12
Citations: 10 Ct. Cl. 62
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Saunders, appellee, v. The United States, appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 62–68

Head Matter:
SAUNDERS’ CASE.
(9 Court of Claims R., 505;
— Wallace R., —.)
William Saunders, appellee, v. The United States, appellants.
On the defendants’ Appeal.
There is a “ Botanic Garden ” “ under the direction of the Library Committee of Congress,” and there is the “ Experimental Garden” established by the Agricultural JBurean. The former has a superintendent and. two assistant superintendents, and Congress make appropriations for them eo nomine for a number of years. For the latter the appropriations are generally “ for the Experimental Garden and the salary of the foreman and laborers.” By the Act July28, 1866, (14 Stat. L.,p.310, § 18,) Congress increased thepay of certain legislative employés and that of the “ three superintendents of the public gardens.” The superintendent of the Experimental Garden claims, that the increase extends to him. Se brings Ms suit, and the court below renders judgment pro forma in his favor. The defendants appeal.
The increased pay given by the Act July 28,1866, (14 Stat. L., p. 310, § 18,) to “ the three superintendents of the public gardens,” relates to the superintendent and assistant superintendents of the garden under the direction of the Library Committee of Congress, and does not extend to the superintendents of the garden under the direction of the Agricultural Bureau, inasmuch as the increased pay is coupled with that of legislative em-ployés exclusively, while the superintendent of the Agricultural Bureau garden has been designated generally in appropriation acts as the “foreman of the Experimental Garden.”
The Reporters' statement of the case :
No opinion was read in the court below, and, there being other cases depending on the construction of the statute, in which the Government had the exclusive right of appeal, a judgment pro forma was rendered in this, which was carried up as a test-case. The facts found by the court below were as follows:
From the 4th day of March, 1865, to the 1st day of July, 1870, the claimant held the position and performed the duties of superintendent of the public gardens of the Department of Agri-cu ture, at a salary of $2,000 per annum.
For the time between July 1,1866, and June 30,1867, he was, under the joint resolution of February 28,1867, (14 Stat. L., 569,) paid, in separate monthly payments, 20 per cent, additional upon his said salary ; but he has not been paid anything additional upon said salary under the eighteenth section of the Act July 28,1866, (14 Stat. L., 310, 323.) ■
Mr. Attorney-General Williams and Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Goforth for the United States, appellants :
The claimant was not within the meaning of the eighteenth section of the Act July 28,1866, (14 Stat. L., 310, 323.) From its language it is evident that it was intended for the benefit of those only who were directly or indirectly under the control of Congress; that is, of the legislative branch of the Government.
It enumerates, first, all the employés of the Senate and House of Eepresentatives-, then the reporters and stenographers of each House, and between the Capitol police and the employés of the Congressional Library are placed the three superintendents of the public gardens.
This juxtaposition (almost blending) of the officers of the public gardens with the officers of the Library is worthy of consideration in the construction of this section; for the Botanic Gardens and the Library are equally under the care and supervision of the Library Committee of Congress. Of the various gardens, Agricultural, Experimental, Propagating, President’s, Congressional, and Botanic, none were included in the legislative appropriations but the latter.
No act of Congress ever created or recognized the office of superintendent of public gardens in any but the Botanic Garden. Whatever may have been Mr. Saunders’ duties, yet he was not known in the eye of the law on the 28th June, 1866, as a superintendent of public garden. The same Congress afterward, by Joint Resolution approved February 28, ;1867, (14 Stat. L., 569,) made an almost identical provision for the officers, employés, &c., of the Executive Departments, the two together including all the employés of the Government within the city of Washington. Being in pari materia, they are to be construed as one act. The resolution allows 20 per cent, additional allowance on the salaries inter alia of civil officers, clerks, employés, &c., of the Department of Agriculture and Commissioner of Public Buildings, thus providing for the public gardens not within the provisions of the eighteenth section of the Act July 28, 1866. The Botanic Garden does not come within the resolution, and the appellee claims that among the many thousands benefited by the act and resolution, he and his comrades in the garden of the Department of Agriculture, for no special reason, were selected to be the recipients of a double portion. Claimant has received 20 per cent, under the joint resolution, placing himself, therefore, in the Executive Departments. Having made his election, he is estopped from changing his base of operations, and claiming as an employé in the legislative department.
In Fdrich’s Case, (Coke’s Reports, 118a, p. 240,) it was held that “the several inditing and penning of the former part, and of this branch, doth argue that the makers did intend a difference of the purviews and remedies, or otherwise they would have followed the same words:”
The present tense of the enacting clause of the eighteenth section indicates that it was intended for a grant or gratuity ending with the fiscal year, and not. for a continuing law. “That there be allowed and paid” is very different from “ the compensation shall be” of the seventeenth section, and is not the language which would be used in enacting a permanent rule for the conduct of disbursing officers of the Government. The further language of the section shows that its authors thought its whole purpose would be accomplished and its vitality gone when 20 per cent, on salaries from the beginning of the Thirty-ninth Congress to the date of its passage, or to the end of the fiscal year, had been allowed and paid, for 11 the amount necessary to gay this allowance'1'1 is thereupon appropriated.
No argument' to the contrary can be drawn from the repeal of the act mentioned in claimant’s petition, (Act July 12,1870, 16 Stat. L., § 4, p. 250,) for this section is repealed only by implication, not expressly.
Mr. J. W. Denver for claimant, appellee:
The question submitted to this court for decision is whether the act, which was made to take effect March 4,1865, extended beyond the date of its approval, July 28, 1866. Of this there would seem to be scarcely a reasonable doubt. It is a general act, and the only period of time referred to is that when it should take effect. The payment of the 20 per cent, additional to their present pay was “ to commence with the present Congress,” and that Congress commenced on the 4th of March, 1865. There was no limitation as to the duration of the act, and it is a well-known fact that other officers and employés embraced under its provisions continued to be paid the 20 per cent, additional until it was finally repealed by the fourth section of the act approved July 12,1870, (16 Stat. L., 250.)
The joint resolution approved February 28,1867, (14 Stat. L., 569,) gave an additional 20 per cent, to certain officers and employés therein mentioned, but that was limited to one year. The Act March 3, 1865, (13 Stat. L., p. 497, § 2,) increased the commutation price of the officer’s ration, but limited it to “ during the continuance of the present rebellion.” Without this limitation would any one doubt that the increase in this case would not have been permanent and continuous in its operation ? And so with all statutes when not limited as to their duration. So with the eighteenth section of the Act July 28,1S66. It continued in full force and effect until repealed by the Act July 12,1870; and there is no conflict between the act and joint resolution. If Congress chose to make a permanent increase of compensation to Government officers and employes, and then to make an additional temporary increase for them, who will deny their right to do so 7

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Bradley
delivered the opinion of the court:
We are clearly of'the opinion that the claimant in this case was not within the intent and meaning of the Act July 28, 1866, (14 Stat. L., p. 310, § 18.) The Court of Claims finds, it is true, that he held the position of superintendent of the public garden of the Agricultural Department during the period for which the claim is made, namely, from March 4, 1865, to July 1,1870. But it is well known that the Botanical Garden near the Capitol has been regarded as a public garden for many years, and long before the Experimental Garden of the Agricultural Department was established, and that itwas managed by a superintendent and assistant superintendents. It is equally well known that this garden has for a long period, if not always, been under the immediate [direction and control of the Joint Library Committee of Congress. The public statutes contain a long series of appropriations for both garden and superintendents. Thus, in the appropriation bill of July 2,1864, for the year ending June 30, 1865, (13 Stat. L., 349,) the following appropriation was made:
" Botanic Garden. — For grading, draining, procuring manure, tools, fuel and repairs, purchasing trees and shrubs, under the direction of the Library Committee of Congress, three thousand three hundred dollars.
"For pay of superintendent of Botanic Garden, and assistants in the Botanic Garden and greenhouses, to be expended under the direction of the Library Committee of Congress, six thousand one hundred and forty-five dollars and eighty cents."
A similar provision is made in the appropriation bill for the year ending June 30,1866, adding $2,500, to be expended under direction of the Joint Committee of the Library, for erecting four greenhouses, (14 Stat. L., 21.) The like appropriation for salaries was made in the appropriation bill for the year ending June 30,1867, (14 Stat. L., 193.) Then comes the act in question, increasing the salaries 20 per cent., to commence with that Congress, to wit, March 4,1865. The act, as will be shown hereafter, increases the salaries of " the three superintendents of the public gardens." Now, in the next appropriation bill, for the year ending June 30, 1868, not only is the ordinary appropriation made for the "Botanic Garden, under direction of Library Committee of Congress, $3,300," and for pay of superintendent and assistants, and assistants in Botanic Garden and greenhouse, under the direction of the Library Committee of Congress, $6,145.80," but a continuation of the 20 per cent, is added thus : " For 20 per centum additional on the pay of the above, $1,229.16." The designation " superintendent and assistants" implies at least three in number. No such appropriation is found in reference to the Experimental G-arden attached to the Department of Agriculture. Whilst the Botanic Garden, under the .direction of the Joint Library Committee of Congress, with its superintendent and his assistants, eo nomine, have thus been the subject of appropriations for a long period, the Experimental Garden established by the Department of Agriculture was comparatively recent, and regarded as an appendage of that Department, and the appropriations therefor had been made under the general head of appropriations for the said Department, and no appropriation for any superintendent thereof, eo nomine, had ever been made up to the time of the passage of the Aet July 28,1866. The appropriation had been for the "Experimental Garden" and for the salary of the foreman and laborers. (See 13 Stat. L., 155; 14 id., 202.)
From this legislative history it is apparent that the Botanic Garden near the Capitol was regarded as a public garden; that it had a superintendent and assistant superintendents; that appropriations' had for years been made for their salaries as superintendent and assistants byname; and that they were employed, and the garden'was managed, under the immediate direction of the Joint Library Committee of the two Houses of Congress. They were in fact employés of this committee.
Now, it seems to us that the eighteenth section of the Act July 28, 1866, which provides for the addition of the 20 per cent, now claimed by the appellee, had reference only to persons employed under the direction of the two Houses of. Congress or their committees, and not to those of any of the Executive Departments. The section itself is its own best interpreter. It is as follows, (14 Stat. L., 323:)
" Sec. 18. And be it further enacted, That there be allowed and paid to the officers, clerks, committee clerks, messengers, and all other employés of the Senate and House of Bepresenta-tives, and to the Globe and official reporters of each House, and the stenographer of the House, and to the Capitol police, and the three superintendents of the public gardens, their clerks and assistants, and to. the librarian, assistant librarians, messengers, and other employés of the Congressional Library, an addition of 20 per cent, on their present pay, to commence with the present Congress; and the amount necessary to pay this allowance is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated."
In view of the long supervision over the Botanic Garden by the Library Committee, and of the previous legislation referred to, language could hardly be plainer.
But there is additional evidence that this increase of salary was intended to be confined to persons employed under the immediate direction of the two Houses of Congress and their committees, in the fact that by a Joint Resolution February 28, 1867, (14 Stat. L., 569,) 20 per cent, was added to the salaries of all employés of the several Executive Departments, including the Department of Agriculture, for one year from and after the 30th of June, 1866; and the claimant actually received such addition accordingly. It is not reasonable to suppose that Congress intended to single out this particular employé from all the Government employés as alone entitled to a double addition of 20 per cent, to his compensation, which he certainly would receive for the year named, if his construction of the Act July 28, 1866, is the correct one.
The judgment must be reversed.