1. The Act of August 23, 1842, declaring that no officer of the
government drawing a fixed salary shall receive additional
compensation for any service unless it is authorized by law, and a
specific appropriation made to pay it, is not repealed by the
twelfth section of the Act of August 26 the same year.
Page 75 U. S. 34
2. An agreement by the Secretary of the Interior to pay a clerk
in his department for services rendered to the government by labors
abroad -- the clerk still holding his place and drawing his pay as
clerk in the Interior -- was accordingly held void.
A statute of the United States passed August 23, 1842, [
Footnote 1] enacts as follows:
"No officer, in any branch of the public service or any other
person whose salary, pay, or emoluments is or are fixed by law or
regulations, shall receive any additional pay, extra allowance, or
compensation, in any form whatever, for the disbursement of public
money, or any other service or duty whatever,
unless the same
shall be authorized by law, and in the
appropriation
therefor explicitly set forth, that it is for such additional
pay, extra allowance, or compensation."
A subsequent statute, [
Footnote
2] one of the 26th August in the same year, enacts by its
twelfth section, as follows:
"That no allowance or compensation shall be made to any clerk or
other officer, by reason of the discharge of duties which belong
to any other clerk in the same or any other department,
and no allowance or compensation shall be made for any extra
services whatever, which any clerk or other officer may be required
to perform."
With these two enactments in force, Stansbury,
being at the
time a clerk in the Department of the Interior, was appointed
in 1851, by the Secretary of the Interior, at that time Mr. Stuart,
an agent to proceed to Europe and prepare for the department an
account of the London Industrial Exhibition. In this employment, he
was engaged in London, and subsequently at Washington, in the
preparation of his report, for a term of seventeen months, but
during all the time of this service, held his place and drew his
pay as a clerk in the Interior Department. The Secretary promised,
in writing, to pay his expenses and allow him a reasonable
compensation for his services. The actual expenses of the agency
were
Page 75 U. S. 35
paid, but on his return, the Secretary of the Interior, now Mr.
McLelland, declined to pay him anything more. He accordingly
brought suit to recover from the United States the value of his
services. The Court of Claims decided that the claim was within and
barred by the act of August 23, 1842, and was not removed therefrom
by the act of the following 26th, and ordered judgment to be
entered for the United States.
Page 75 U. S. 36
MR. JUSTICE DAVIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The appellant insists that the written promise of the Secretary
to pay him the value of his services is a binding obligation on the
government. But this is not so, for no authority of law existed for
the promise. The Secretary could not pay the claim because there
was no appropriation to pay it, and he was not authorized by
Congress to create an agency to perform the service in question. He
undoubtedly acted in good faith with Stansbury, and supposed that
Congress would approve the mode he adopted for obtaining useful
information, and ratify his proceedings; and his promise, under the
circumstances, must be considered as a dependent one, to take
effect, if Congress appropriated money to enable him to comply with
it. Congress having failed to make the appropriation, the Secretary
was justified in refusing to pay the claim.
But he was justified in his refusal an another ground. The
payment of the claim was forbidden by positive law.
The second section of the act of August 23, 1842, declares
Page 75 U. S. 37
that no officer of the government, drawing a fixed salary, shall
receive additional compensation for any service unless it is
authorized by law and a specific appropriation made to pay it. When
Stansbury was appointed in 1851, this law was in force, and
afforded notice to all employees of the government, of the policy
of Congress on the subject to which it relates. The law was passed
to remedy an evil which had existed, of detailing officers with
fixed pay to perform duties outside of their regular employment,
and paying them for it, when the government was entitled, without
this double pay, to all their services. The law prohibited, and was
intended to do so, the allowance of such claims as these, made by
public officers, for extra compensation, on the ground of extra
services.
But the appellant insists, if the above act embraced clerks in
the departments, its operation has been withdrawn from them by the
twelfth section of the act of 26th of August, 1842. It is difficult
to see how this conclusion is reached, because this section refuses
to pay clerks or other officers in the departments for doing the
duties of other clerks or officers, and refuses, further, to pay
them for extra services of any kind.
There is no inconsistency between the provisions of the two
acts, which were passed within a few days of each other, and were
parts of a system, intended for the guidance of those in the employ
of the government. These provisions furnished notice to all in
authority, that in no event could clerks in the departments be paid
for doing the work of their fellow clerks, nor could they be paid
for any other service, unless it was authorized by law, and
followed by an appropriation to pay for it.
Stansbury's appointment was not authorized by law, nor was there
any appropriation to pay for the services which he expected to
render the department.
It follows, therefore, that the transaction between Secretary
Stuart and himself was in violation of the statute, and cannot be
the foundation of an action
Judgment affirmed.
[
Footnote 1]
§ 2; 5 Stat. at Large 510.
[
Footnote 2]
Ib., 525.
