
    EMBRY’S CASE.
    (12 C. Cls. R., 455; 100 U. S. R., 680.)
    Bowling Embry, appellant, v. The United States, appellees.
    
      On the claimant’s Appeal.
    
    
      A postmaster is suspended by the President under the Tenure of office Act, 1869. A substitute is appointed, who is nominated as his successor. The next session of the Senate ends without action having been taken on the nomination. Ten days later, the substitute vacates the office and the postmaster resumes it. The former is paid up to the time he vacates; the latter brings his action for the salary.
    
    
      Tlie court below decides tliat the President might lawfully suspend the officer, and that the substitute was entitled to the salary so long as he performed the duties of the suspended officer. J udgment for the defendants. The claimant appeals.
    The judgment ofthe court below is affirmed. The SupremeCourtnow holds: (1) That Congress have full control of salaries, and may take away the salary from the officer though he continue to hold the office; (2) That a claim for salary is founded on a statute and not on a contract.
   The Chiep Justice

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, May 10, 1880.  