Case: Henry H. Clapp v. The United States
Abbreviation: Clapp v. United States
Decision Date: 1871-12
Docket Number: 
Citation: 7 Ct. Cl. 351
Volume: 7
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Henry H. Clapp v. The United States.
Judges: 
Pages: 351–356

Head Matter:
Henry H. Clapp v. The United States.
On the Proofs.
The claimant is a cleric of the fourth elass in the office of the Congressional Printer t at a salary of $1,800 a year. Congress enact that there he dtlowed to the officers, clerics, committee-clerics, messengers, and all other employés of the Senate, and Souse of Bepresentatives an addition of. twenty per cent, on their pay. The claimant is not paid this increase, and he brings this action to recover it.
The Congressional Printer is an officer of the Senate, hut his duties are not confined to the Senate. They extond equally to the House of Representatives and to all Departments of the Government hy law authorized to require printing at the Government Printing-Office. Being distinct duties, discharged outside of the halls of Congress, paid for hy specific appropriation, and not out of the contingent fund of Congress, the Congressional Printer, his clerks and employés, cannot he classed as officers or employés of the Senate within the meaning of the Act 28th July, 1866, (14 Stat. JL., p. 32:5, 5 18,) which provides that there be allowed “ to the officers, clerics, committee-clerks, messengers, and all other employes of the Senate and House,” an addition of twenty per cent, on their pay.
Messrs. Lander <b Mérrima n for claimant:
The claimant was appointed a clerk in class four by the Congressional? Printer, and was so employed from the date of his appointment to the present time, as follows: From the 15th day of May, 18C9, and has received a salary from that date at the rate of $1,800 per annum, the salary of clerks of that class having been fixed by law at that rate prior to the act of July 28, 1866. (See act of March 3,1853, par. 3, 10 Stat. L., 209.)
The only question in this case is whether the claimant comes within the provision of the said act of July 28,1866, providing for an increase of his salary of 20 per cent, upon the salaries then provided bylaw.
The eighteenth section of the said act reads as follows :
“ That there shall be allowed and paid to the officers, clerics, committee-clerks, messengers, and all other employés of the Senate and House of Eexmesentatives, an addition of twenty per cent, on their present pay, to commence with the present Congress.”
The act providing for the election of a Congressional Printer, approved February 22,1867, provides as follows :
“ The Senate shall elect some competent person, who shall be a ’practical printer, to take charge of and manage the Government Printing-Office. That the person so elected shall be deemed an officer of the Senate, and shall be designated as ‘ Congressional Printer.’ ”
The Congressional Printing-Office was, therefore, from and after the passage of said act, a branch of the Senate, its head was an officer thereof, and the employés in that branch were •employés thereof. It is objected that, because at the time of the passage of the act of July 28, 1866, tire Senate had no such branch or officer, therefore no employés in that branch of the •Senate are included within the provisions of the said act.
This objection might be made with equal propriety against increasing the salary of any employé who was not in the employment of the Senate at the date of the passage of the act. That the act cannot bear such a construction is evident from its language. The law is general in its character; it provides that 'there shall be allowed and paid to “ all employés an addition of twenty per centum on their present pay, to commence with the present Congress.” It was an increase of the salaries, then allowed by law, of twenty per cent., but such increase in salary was to commence from the Congress then in session, and was a provision for the future, and was a proposition to all, who should accept of i ts provisions, to pay certain salaries, and instead of $1,800 to certain clerks, Congress agreed that clerks in such class should thereafter receive a salary increased twenty per cent.
And as this claimant was appointed as clerk in said Congressional Printing-Office, and was so employed under and by ■ an officer of 'the Senate after the passage of said act increasing the pay of such employés, and as such law has never been repealed, he is entitled to receive the pay fixed by Jaw at the time of such employment.
Mr. J. Shroder (with whom was the Assistant Attorney-General) for the defendants :
I. It is contended that the provisions of section 18, of the act •of July 28, 1866, do not extend to the period of claimant’s employment. The act merely allows “ an addition of twenty per cent, on the present pay of certain employés, but does not increase their regular and permanent salaries, as provided by law. The manifest intent of the statute is to make an additional alloicance to the pay — to add the twenty per cent, allowance to the regular pay, but not to incorporate it. The twenty per cent, is to be ddded to the present pay. The provision is of temporary application, and not of permanent force. Kindred statutes (the twenty per cent, acts, June 25, 18C-1, sec. 3, 13 Stat. L., 160; July 23,1866, sec. 7,14 Stat. L., 207; Feb. 28, 1867, 14 Stat. L., 569,) establish the point.
The appropriations for “ compensation of the Congressional Printer, (formerly Superintendent of Public Printing,) and the clerks and messengers in his office,” having in contemplation the fixed salary of $1,800, and no more, to said clerks, certainly determine the temporary nature of the act of July 28, 1806. (See' appropriation acts, March 2, 1867, 14 Stat. L., 443; July . 20, 1868, 15 Stat. L., 95: March 3, 1869, 15 Stat. L., 285.)
II. The claimant is not among the specified beneficiaries of the act of July 28, I860, section 18. The allowance is intended for “ officers, clerks, committee-clerks, messengers, and all other employés of the Senate ” — all other employés ejusdem generis— engaged in the service of the Senate, directly ancillary to legislation. The claimant is not of this class, being a clerk in the office of the Congressional Printer, whose duty it is to take-charge of, manage, and superintend the execution of the printing and binding ordered by Congress, by the executive and judicial departments in Washington. (1 Brightley’sDig., 795; 2' Brightley’s Dig., 514; 14 Stat. L., 398.) The claimant’s service, subservient in a certain way to all the branches of the Government, does not bring him within that class whose office was, to meet the wants of the Senate, apart of but one of the branches-of the Government.
It is submitted that section 18 of the act of J nly 28,1806, applied to such employés only as were located in the Capitol.
Moreover the acts of March 2, 1807, (14 Stat. L., 440,) July 20,1868, (lo Stat. L., 92,) and March 3, 1869, (15 Stat. L., 283,) are conclusive to the point here contended for by the defendants. These acts explicitly specify the “.officers, clerks, messengers, and others receiving an annual salary in the service of the Senate.” The absence of the claimant’s clerkship from this list, thus repeatedly legislated upon, argues decisively against the petitioner’s claim of being an employé of the Senate.

Opinion:
Milligan, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court:
The claimant, Henry H. Clapp, has been employed since May 17, 1869, as a clerk in the office of the Congressional Printer, in Washington. He ranks as a clerk of the fourth class, and has been regularly paid his salary at the rate of $1,800 per an-num. But he claims more, and alleges, under the eighteenth, section of the act of Congress approved July 28, 1866, he is entitled to $30 per month additional compensation, and now brings this suit tojecover $495, which he avers is still due him for his services from May 17,1869, to September 30,1870.
The whole question involved in this case turns on the construction to be given the eighteenth section of the. act of July 28,1866, under which this suit is prosecuted.
The section relied on is taken from an act entitled "An act making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Govern- merit for the year ending- June 30,1807, and for other purposes," and reads as follows :
u Sec. 18. That there be allowed and paid to the officers, clerks, committee-clerks, messengers, and all other employés of the Senate and House of Representatives, and to the G-lobe and official reporters of each House, and the stenographer of the House, and to the Capitol police, and to the three superintendents of the public gardens, their clerks and assistants, and to the Librarian, assistant librarians, messengers, 'and other employes of the Congressional Library, an addition of' twenty 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." — (14 Stat. L., sec. 18, p. 323.)
Prior to the act of July 28, 1806, the compensation of clerks of the fourth class, in the several Departments of the Government, was fixed by the act of March 3,1853, (10 Stat. L., sec. 3, pp. 209, 310,) at $1,800 per annum.
But it is insisted in argument that the rate of compensation fixed by this statute is so enlarged by the eighteenth section of the act of July 28, 1860, a.s to include clerks and other employes in the office of Congressional Printer, and to give them the additional twenty per cent, on their salary allowed directly to officers, clerks, &c., of the Senate and House of Eepresentatives.
This argument rests wholly on the act of Congress providing for the election of Congressional Printer, approved February 22,1867, (14 Stat. L., pp). 398-9,) which declares " that the person so elected shall be deemed an officer of the Senate, and shall be designated ' Congressional Printer.'" The duties imposed .on this officer are the same as those previously discharged by the Superintendent of Public Printing. He is required to superintend the printing and binding of the journals of each House of Congress, and all the other printing and binding for the respective Departments of the Government which, by law, are required to be done at the Government Printing-Office.
The duties of the Congressional Printer are not, therefore, confined to the Senate, but equally extend to the House of Representatives and all the other Departments of the Government which, by law, are authorized to require printing and binding at the Government Printing-Office. They are separate and distinct duties, and are all discharged outside the halls of Congress, and not paid for out of the contingent fund of Congress, but by specific appropriation. It follows, therefore, that the head of this branch of the public service, much less his clerks and employés, cannot, in any just sense, be classed among the officers of the Senate mentioned in the eighteenth section of the act of July 28,1866.
In support of this view it cannot be overlooked that this act provides specifically, and by' name, for the persons who are entitled to receive its benefits, and we cannot, by construction, include any others. To do so would be doing violence to the plainest rule of interpretation which is recognized by all courts. The maxim is, expressio unius exclusio alterius, which, when applied to this case, cuts off the claimant from all participation in the benefits of the act under consideration.
If this conclusion needed support it can be found in the subsequent legislation of Congress. The acts of March 2, 1867, (14 Stat. L., 440,) July 20,1868, (15 Stat. L., 92,) and March 3,1869, (15 Stat. L., 283,) explicitly mention the officers, messengers, and other employés in the Senate who are entitled by law to receive an annual salary, and neither the Congressional Printer nor any of the clerks or employés in the Government Printing-Office are included. It is obvious, therefore, (so far as appropriation acts can be looked to as expressing the will of the legislature,) that the intention of Congress, when it declared in the act of February 22, 1867, that the Congressional Printer should " be deemed an officer of the Senate," was not to include him, or the claimant acting under him, within the provisions of the eighteenth section of the act of June. 28, 1866.
In no aspect of the case can we sustain the claimant's right of action, and the petition must be dismissed.