
    THE 20 PER CENT. CASES. Thomas B. Marche v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      Various actions are brought to recover the “20 per cent.” given to certain persons in the civil service at Washington by the joint resolution 28th February, 1867, (14 Stat. L.,p. 569;) among these are the cases of the Capitol police, watchmen in the Capitol, and on the Capitol grounds; watchman at the Smithsonian Institution, ondlaborers on ihepublio grounds; also the guard of the jail of the District of Columbia; also the assistant assessors of internal revenue whose duties are performed within the city of Washington.
    
    I. The court adheres to the respective constructions previously given to the Joint Resolution 28th February, 1867, (14 Stat. L., p. 569,) -which allows an additional 20 per cent, of compensation to persons in the civil service at Washington. See Mallory’s Case, &c., (3 C. Cls. R., pp. 257, 260, 263, 365, 267;) and Balter’s Case, (4 id., p. 227.)
    II. Assistant assessors of internal revenue whose duties are performed within the city of Washington, (their district being merely one of the internal revenue districts into which the whole country is divided,) are not officers employed in the “Treasury Department” “at Washington” within the meaning of the Joint Resolution 28th February, 1867, (14 Stat. L., p. 569.) The functions of the office do not lie within the Treasury Department at the seat of government, and Congress, by specially extending the benefit of the resolution to officers in the city j>ost office, recognized this rule of construction, which is an illustration of the maxim exceptio probat regnlam.
    
    
      Mr. J. Daniels for the claimants:
    This case came into court by original petition, and is brought by the claimant to recover additional compensation under the joint resolution of Congress approved February 28, 1867. The claimant was employed as assistant assessor of internal revenue, and performed Ms duties within the city of Washington.
    The testimony shows that the claimant was commissioned by the Secretary of the Treasury, and that he performed his duties within the city of Washington; that he held office during' the year commencing on the 30th day of June, 1866, and ending on the 30th day of June, 1867; and that he received for his services from the government the sum of $1,289 63, during that year. These facts show him to have been a civil officer who performed his duties within the city of Washington, whose salary did not exceed the sum of $3,500 per annum, and clearly entitles him to the benefits intended to be conferred by said resolution.
    
      The Assistant Attorney General for the defendants:
    The claim here sought to be recovered is not within the remedy provided by the joint resolution.
    I. The claimant, as assistant assessor of internal revenue, was employed at Washington, one of the internal revenue districts into which the whole country was divided. (See 12 Stat. L., p. 433.) The only reasonable construction of the joint resolution makes it clear that the additional compensation of 20 per centum was intended to be made on the salaries of those officers, clerks, employés, &c., whose duties were performed at Washington, the seat of government, and whose employment was peculiar to the seat of government. Whatever exceptions are made to this construction, the joint resolution specifically states, thus excluding all others not therein mentioned. And the office of assessor of internal revenue is not included in the list of offices, bureaus, &c., inserted in the joint resolution, together with the Executive Departments.
    II. The acts of Congress (respectively approved June 30, 1864, July 13, 1866) fixing the allowance and-pay of assistant assessors were framed with reference to the cost of living, (see 13 Stat. L., p. 231, see. 22; 14 Stat. L., p. 105; and 14 Stat. L., p. 473, sec. 9;) and this makes the opinion of this court in Baker’s Case (4 C. Cls. R., p. 227) decisive against this claim.
   Nott, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

In these cases, which are brought to recover various amounts under the Joint Resolution 28th February, 1867, (14 Stat. L., p. 569,) and which number several hundred, the court adheres to the decisions previously rendered, and to the constructions of the joint resolution previously given. We now merely segregate a number of cases, each representing a specific class under the decision to which they respectively belong.

Among those which come under the favorable construction of Mallory's Case (3 C. Cls. R., pp. 257, 260, 263, 265, 267) are the following:

Neuman's Case, which is that of a member of the Capitol police.

Harris's Case, that of a watchman on the Capitol grounds.

Fitzpatrick's Case, that of a keeper of the -western gate of the Capitol.

Richard's Case, that of a watchman on the dome of the Capitol.

Lytle's Case, that of watchman on the east grounds of the Capitol.

Holbrook's Case, that of watchman at the Government stables at the Capitol.

Hall's Case, that of watchman in the crypt of the Capitol.

La Rieu's Case, that of a watchman at the Smithsonian Institution.

Bohn's Case, that of a laborer on the public grounds.

Manning's Case, that of one of the guard of the jail.

Of actions which we think fall under the decision in Baker's Case (4. C. Cls. R., p. 227) is that of Marche. The case is that of an assistant assessor of internal revenue whose duties were performed within the city of Washington.

We agree with the Assistant Attorney General that the claimant, as assistant assessor of internal revenue, was merely employed in one of the internal revenue districts into which the whole country is divided. The fact of his district coinciding to some extent with the city of Washington was an accident. The functions of his office did not lie within the Treasury Department at the seat of the government, within the meaning of the joint resolution, more than any other assessor’s in the country. The same rule of construction would apply to the city post office, and Congress apparently recognized it j but being desirous of extending to the emploj'és of that office the benefits of the resolution, specially included it by name. This is an illustration of the maxim, much perverted and misunderstood, exceptúo probat regulara. The petition must be dismissed.

In the case of Richard Middleton, which is that of'one employed as inspector of marble at the Capitol, and paid a salary out of moneys appropriated for the Capitol extension, we do not perceive that he was one of those employés whose pay was limited by law. It would seem as if the Secretary, who once increased his salary from $100 a month to $150, might have paid him whatever his services were worth in the market: and if he had the power, the presumption is that he did so. If, on the contrary, the Secretary gave such a construction to the appropriation acts, or to the peculiar duties of the claimant, as to lead him to the conclusion that he was directly or indirectly limited to the amount which he allowed to the claimant, then justice requires that the court should adopt the conclusion of the Secretary, and view the claimant as one properly within the civil service. The case is therefore remanded to the general docket for further evidence.  