Majority — Waite J.
Syllabus
The government printing-office not being a bureau or division of either of the executive departments, or mentioned in the joint resolution of Congress of Feb. 28,1867, 14 Stat. 569 , the employes thereof are not entitled to the additional compensation authorized by that resolution.delivered the opinion of the court.'
Allison was an employé in the government printing-office, from June 30, 1866, to June 30, 1867, and, in this suit, claims additional compensation for his services in consequence of. the ' joint resolution of Feb. 28, 1867. 14 Stat. 569 . He contends that the government printing-office was, during the.fiscal, year commencing July 1, 1866, a bureau in the Department of the Interior. If it was. not, he substantially concedes that he is not entitled to the benefit of the resolution.
The Department of the Interior is one of the executive departments of the government. Rev. Stat., sect. 437. It was made so March 30, 1849. 9 Stat. 395 . It is specially charged with the supervision of certain exécutive bureaus. Its present jurisdiction is defined in sect. 441, Rev. Stat. The government printing-office has never been placed,under its jurisdiction by-any express statute.
On the 26th August, 1852, Congress passed an act entitled “ An act to provide for executing the public printing and establishing the prices thereof, and for other purposes.” 10 Stat. 30 . It is only necessary to say of this act, that it provided for the appointment of a superintendent of public printing, and that he was to give an official bond to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior. .His duties were carefully defined; and he was made in fact, what his name implies, the superintendent of the public printing by the public printers. These public printers were, at that time, appointed by the two Houses of Congress, each House appointing its own.
On the 23d of June,'1860, a joint resolution was, passed' by Congress “ in relation to the public printing.” 12 Stat. 117 . This resolution dispensed with the public printers appointed by the two Houses of Congress, and placed the whole subject' of public printing in charge of .the superintendent. In the language of thé resolution (sect. 2), he was “ to superintend all the printing and binding, the purchase of paper, . . . the purchase of other necessary materials and machinery, and the employment of proof-readers,' compositors, pressmen, laborers,; and other hands - necessary to execute the orders of Congress and of the executive and judicial departments at the city of
The commissions of all officers under the direction or control of the Secretary of the Interior must be made out and recorded in the Department of the 'Interior, and the seal of the department must be affixed thereto. 10 Stat. 297 , sect. 3. The court below has found as a fact, that “ in 1867 the commission of the superintendent of public, printing was made- out and recorded in the .Department of the Interior, and the seal of the department affixed thereto, pursuant to the provisions of ” this act.. It nowhere appears that any act of. Congress expressly required this to be done; neither does it appear at what time in the year 1867 this commission was issued or recorded.
On the 22d February, 1867, Congress .passed an act entitled “An act providing for the election of the congressional printer.” By this act, the Senate was to elect some competent person “ to take charge of. and manage the government printing-office.” He was given the same powers as the superintendent of public printing. From and after the election of the congressional printer, the office of superintendent of public printing was abolished. 14 Stat. 397 . The Senate elected a congressional printer in pursuance of this act, Feb. 26; but he did not take ■possession of his office until March 1, and the superintendent
In Manning’s Case, 13 Wall. 578 , it appeared that the guards of the jail in the District of Columbia .were selected by the warden, but that their compensation was fixed and paid by the Secretary of the Interior. It also appeared that the whole subject of the jail was under the supervision of the secretary, to whom the warden was required to report. Under, these circumstances, we held that the office of the warden of the jail was a bureau or division of the Department of the Interior.
This is as far as any case has yet gone. The Secretary of the Interior has no control whatever over the employment of men by the superintendent of public printing. He cannot fix their wages or supervise the action of the superintendent in that particular. He does not pay them, and has no control whatever of the funds out of which they are paid. He may pay the superintendent for printing doné upon the order .of his department; but the superintendent disburses without any accountability to him. In short, the superintendent seems to have a department of his own, in which he is in a sense supreme. Certainly he is not under the control of any one of the executive departments. Apparently he is more responsible to Congress than to any other authority. The Secretary of the Interior keeps and approves his bond. The same secretary must, under some circumstances, approve his purchases of paper in open market. He sends to that department also his accounts of the receipts and disbursements of -'paper. The joint committee on printing in the two Houses of Congress settle all disputes between him and his contractors for the delivery of pgper. He reports to Congresá' in respect to his employes, and to the Secretary of the Treasury in respect to his receipts and disbursements. From that department also he draws his mon'ey upon proper requisitions. He is under the direction of the committees of each House of Congress in respect to engraving,- and he goes to the Secretary of the Treasury with his estimates.
In our opinion, his employes, as they are not specially enumerated, are not included in the resolution of Feb. 28, 1867; and, on that account, this claim cannot be maintained.
The judgment of the Court of Claims is reversed, and the .cause remanded, with instructions to dismiss the petition. .
Cases cited
- 13 Wall. 578 13 Wall. 578 p. 307