ury, prior to the act in the 18th Statutes, it was arranged that the acting treasurer of the Home had leave to deposit his funds in the sub-treasury at Boston, and to be paid out on checks drawn by him thereon, so that there is nothing in the way of that act. "There has been no change made in the dealings between the Home and the Treasury Department." This noble institution is but a fulfilment, in part, of that measure of justice which the nation owes to its disabled volunteer soldiers, and the laws relating to it are entitled to a liberal construction to carry out its objects, and every facility which the law permits should be given by all connected with the Government to aid its operations." The construction given to the acts of Congress to which reference is made, becomes somewhat important, because it applies generally to asylums and similar institutions under the patronage of Congress, and to the fiscal officers of such institutions. This whole subject has been considered on conference with the Second Comptroller and the Deputy First and Second Comptrollers, and I am authorized to say that they concur in the foregoing opinion. For the information of the officers of the Home and of the Treasury Department, it may be stated that in November, 1878, there were submitted to the Second Comptroller two questions touching the accounts of the Home, to wit: 1. "Are balances of appropriations remaining unexpended at the end of each fiscal year to be covered into the Treasury as provided by section 3690, Revised Statutes? 2. "Ought the amount realized from sales by said Home to be covered into the Treasury as proceeds of Government property, as provided by section 3618, Revised Statutes?" These he answered as follows: "I deem it clear that such of said balances as have not been transmitted by requisition of the Secretary of War to the corporation mentioned in section 4825, remaining thus unexpended, should be covered into the Treasury, in pursuance of section 3690, Revised Statutes, and the 5th section of the act of June 20, 1874, (18 Stats., 110.) "But as to such parts of the appropriations as have been regularly drawn from the Treasury and paid over to the said corporation in pursuance of the act of March 3, 1875, (18 Stats., 359,) the covering-in acts do not seem to apply." And he further says: "To avoid all difficulty which might arise from an unnecessary amount of money becoming thus set apart, [for the Home,] Congress has, by the last-named act, [of March 3, 1875,] besides requiring the annual estimate made for the information of Congress, required the managers of said Home to furnish to the Secretary of War quarterly estimates of the probable expense of each ensuing quarter, and 'an account of all their receipts and expenditures for the quarter immediately preceding. In this manner the Secretary of War is furnished with such data as to be able to determine, with reasonable certainty, whether at any time an unnecessary part of the appropriation has been placed in the keeping of the corporation, and to remedy any probable evil of this kind when issuing subsequent requisitions. This check upon the amounts to be intrusted to the administration of the corporation seems to have been designed by Congress as a substitute for the covering-in process which applies when the money is in the hands of disbursing agents having no corporate power, and no legal title to the money intrusted to them. "I think there is no doubt the second interrogatory may be answered in the negative." IN THE MATTER OF EMPLOYÉS IN GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. HOLIDAY CASE. 1. In construing a statute in which there is ambiguity, the real intention of the lawmaking power, as gathered from recognized sources of interpretation and con. struction, must prevail, though contrary to the ordinary meaning of the mere letter of some parts of the act. 2. Rules of construction stated. 3. The joint resolution of Congress of April 16, 1880, giving pay to the employés of the Government Printing Office for legal holidays, including July 4, when employés of other Departments are so paid, was intended to give pay for Monday, July 5, it having, by usage in the Departments, been adopted as the holiday when Sunday happened to be the 4th of July. 4. It was the holiday rather than the day to which the gratuity was intended to be applied. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, FIRST COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of letters of the 28th and 31st ultimo, from John Larcombe, disbursing clerk for the Public Printer, in his absence, calling my attention to the joint resolution of April 16, 1880, providing for payment of wages to employés in the Government Printing Office for legal holidays, and inquiring if the employés of the Government Printing Office may be paid wages for the 5th of July as a holiday, the 4th having fallen on Sunday, and the office having been closed on the 5th as a holiday. The joint resolution provides: "That the employés of the Government Printing Office shall be allowed the following legal holidays with pay, to wit: the 1st day of January, the 22d day of February, the 4th day of July, the 25th day of December, and such day as may be designated by the President of the United States as a day of public fast or thanksgiving: Provided, That the said employés shall be paid for these holidays only when the employés of the other Government Departments shall be so paid: And provided further, That nothing herein contained shall authorize any additional payment to such employés as receive annual salaries." Your inquiry relates to pay for the 5th of July. If we adhere to the strict letter of the resolution and apply it to the subject of your inquiries, it only declares the 4th day of July a legal holiday, and provides that certain employés of the Government Printing Office shall be paid for this holiday when the (like) employés of other The employés of other DeThe resolution does not in Government Departments shall be so paid. partments were not so paid for that day. terms provide that in case the 4th day of July shall fall on Sunday another day may be substituted instead. But there is a maxim applicable to the construction of statutes, qui hæret in littera, hæret in cortice. The mere letter must yield to the intention of the law-making power. Sedgwick says "that in construing a statute, the judges have a right to decide in some cases even in direct contravention of its language,” in order to give effect to the intention. (Sedgwick on Stat., 254, 2d ed.; 1 Ohio R., 480; 10 Ohio, 515; 15 Ohio, 341; 1 Ohio St., 543; 3 Ohio Stat., 85; 30 Vt., 746; 10 N. Y., 374; 5 Dutch., 96; 11 C., B. N. S., 244; 10 Minn., 107; 3 Laws, 398.) Statutes are to be construed according to the intention of the makers, if this can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, although such construction may seem contrary to the ordinary meaning of the letter of the statute. (Silver vs. Ladd, 7 Wall., 219; Stamil vs. Ramond, 4 Cush., 314; Erwin vs. Moore, 15 Ga., 361; Bathurst vs. Course, 3 La. Ann., 260; Commercial Bank vs. Foster, 5 Id., 516; Canal Co. vs. Railroad Co., 4 Gill & J., Md., 1; Ingraham vs. Speed, 30 Miss., 410; New Orleans, &c., R. R. Co. vs. Hemphill, 35 Miss., 17; Brown vs. Wright, 13 N. J., L., 1 Green, 240; State vs. Clarksville, &c., R. R. Co., 2 Sneed, Tenn., 88; Ryegate vs. Wardsboro', 30 Vt., 746; Jackson vs. Collins, 3 Cow., N. Y., 89; Riddick vs. Governor, 1 Mo., 147; Beal vs. Harwood, 2 Har. & J., Md., 167; Wilkinson vs. Leland, 2 Pet., 662; People vs. Utica Ins. Co., 15 Johns., N. Y., 358; Minor vs. Mechanics' Bank of Alexandria, 1 Pet., 64.) In Brown vs. Somerville, 8 Md., 444, the Supreme Court of that State says: "The words of an act may be disregarded when that is necessary to arrive at the intention of law-makers." Construction can be carried to this extent only when there is real ambiguity and doubt. (4 Dal., 30.) Statutes like that under consideration, which are designed to secure equality in privileges and exemptions among classes of Government employés, and especially for those engaged in productive labor, are entitled to a liberal construction, and to what is called the equity of the statute in their favor. (4 Dutch., 523; Story Eq., 754.) In the construction of statutes, it is permitted to look outside of the statute to learn the previous state of the law, and the mischiefs which the statute was passed to obviate. (Sedgwick, 202.) And where a statute is applicable only to a particular place, doubtful words may be construed with reference to the usage of that place. (Love vs. Hinckley, 1 Abb., Admr. R., 486; Bailey vs. Rolfe, 16 N. H., 247; Sedg., 216.) There had been a usage in the Government Printing Office for many years, by which holidays were observed and the employés paid as if they had rendered service. And if a holiday fell on Sunday, the next day was observed and employés paid therefor. Thus, the 4th of July was on Sunday in 1869 and 1875, and the first of January was on Sunday in 1865, 1871, and 1876, but in each case the next day was observed and paid for. This usage was subsequently discontinued. The other departments of the Government for many years observed, and continue to observe, the usage which had prevailed in the Government Printing Office. The discontinuance of the usage in the Government Printing Office left the employés therein less favored than those of other departments. The object of the statute was to place all on the same footing, and give like advantages to all rendering service in like manner. The joint resolution was aimed not so much at any day as the holidays, or days observed as such. The evident design was that no distinction should be made on account of the place of service. Without this construction, the equity of the resolution in some measure fails. The employés in the Government Printing Office, who do not receive annual salaries, or salaries fixed upon the basis of an annual salary, are, therefore, entitled to pay for the holiday observed as for the 4th day of July, in the same manner as employés similarly situated in other departments. I have the honor to be, respectfully, WM. LAWRENCE, First Comptroller. Hon. JOHN D. DEFREES, Public Printer, Washington, D. C. |
