
    JULIAN E. WOODWELL v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [No. 25635.
    Decided May 7, 1906.]
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    The claimant is inspector of electric-light plants in the Treasury Department, receiving _ a salary of $2,000 a year. Congress appropriates for installation of electric-light plants in the Interior Department. There being no person in that Department competent, the Secretary of the Interior applies to the ■ Secretary of the Treasury for such a person, who directs the claimant to render the required assistance. He accordingly proposes detailed plans and specifications and renders other services. All of his services are rendered out of his hours and in addition to his regular services in the Trearury Department.
    
      I. Though the services of'an employee of the Treasury Department .rendered for and in the Interior Department at the request of the Secretary thereof and by direction of the Secretary of the Treasury were valuable and beneficial to the Government and were performed out of hours and in addition to the full performance of his regular duties in the Treasury Department, yet they are prohibited by. Revised Statutes, §§ 1763, 1764, and 1765, and no recovery can be had for them.
    II. The .conditions under which an employee of the Government can recover additional compensation examined and stated.
    
      The Reporters’ stateDient of the case:
    The following are the facts of the case as found by the court:
    T. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and the inspector of electric-light plants under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department, and was such inspector and employee in the Treasury Department at all of the times hereinafter mentioned, receiving a salary of. $2,000 per annum, and during which time the services hereinafter mentioned were rendered the claimant was a mechanical and electrical engineer. ■
    II. The sundry civil appropriation act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1902, provided for the installation of an electric-light plant for the Department of the Interior buildings and.for improvement in the heating of the Patent Office buildings.
    III. The following correspondence took place between the office of the Secretary of the Interior and the office of the Secretary of the Treasury -relative to the employment of the claimant in and about the installation of said electric lighting plant and the improvement of said heating of the Patent Office building.
    “ DEPARTMENT OP THE INTERIOR,
    
      “ Washington, March 11,1901.
    
    
      “ The honorable the Secretary op the Treasury.
    “ Sir : In the sundry civil act approved March 3, 1901, appropriation is made—
    “ ‘ For the establishment of an electric lighting plant for building occupied by offices of the Department of the Interior, the Patent'Office building, the'old Post-Office building, now occupied by the General Land and Indian bureaus, and the Pension Office building, and for improvement in the heating of the Patent Office building, including the necessary conduits.’
    “ When this item was under consideration, the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives secured, through the Assistant Superintendent of the Treasury, the itemized estimate of cost of the proposed work upon which the amount of appropriation is based, and, at the hearing-before the committee, it was also indicated by members thereof that it would be expected that the projected work should conform to the estimates and the general plan outlined therein.
    “ I have therefore to request that, if practicable, some competent person connected with the Treasury Department, expert in such matters, may be authorized to prepare detailed plans and specifications, upon which proposals-for the work contemplated in the appropriation may be called for at an early date.
    “ Very respectfully,
    “ (Signed) E. A. Hitchcock,
    “ Secretary?''
    
    “ TrEASTJRY DEPARTMENT,
    ' “ Washington, March 14,1901.
    
    “ The honorable the Secretary op ti-ie Interior.
    “ Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your leter, dated March 11, 1901, requesting that a competent person, now employed by this Department, be authorized to prepare the necessary plans and specifications covering the installation of a plant for the lighting of the old Post-Office Department building, Patent Office building, and Pension Office building, and the improvement in the heating of the Patent Office building, including conduits.
    “ In reply, you are informed that the work incident to the preparation of the plans and specifications can be performed under the supervision of a qualified employee of this office, who is familiar with the requirements, but as the work will involve the employment of draftsmen and other persons who can not be supplied from the regular force of this Department without detriment to its business it is assumed that such service can be paid for from the appropriation provided for the installation of the plant. Such expense will not exceed $500, including the expense incident to a general inspection of the work, during the pqriod- of the installation.
    “ It is the judgment of this Department that the installation can be completed in all its details in the most satisfactory manner without exceeding the limits of the appropriation provided therefor, namely, $74,000.
    “ Respectfully,
    “(Signed) O. L. Spaulding,
    
      “Acting Secretary.”
    “'DEPARTMENT OP THE INTERIOR,
    “Wasñmgtan, May 8,1901.
    
    “ The honorable the Secretary oe the Treasury.
    “ Sir : Referring to your letter of March 14,1901, in which you state that in compliance with the request of this Department a competent person connected with the Treasury Department will be authorized to prepare necessary plans and specifications covering the installation of the electric-lighting plant for the buildings of this Department, and to your suggestion that the work will involve the employment of draftsmen and other persons who can not be supplied from the regular force of the Treasury Department, and which would involve an expense not to exceed $500, which would include the expense incident to the general inspection of the work duting the period of installation, I have the honor to inclose herewith a copy of the decision of the Comptroller of the Treasury, to whom the matter was submitted by this Department, in which the conclusion is reached that prior to July 1,1901, the preliminary expenses necessary to carry into effect the appropriation for the electric-lighting plant may be incurred, although payment therefor can not be made previous to that date.
    “ The Department would be glad to have the preliminary work commenced at the earliest practicable date, and would be pleased to consider any recommendation as to the employment of the services of draftsmen, etc., referred to in your letter. If such services can not be procured upon the terms named by the Comptroller, it is believed that it can, in the meantime, be furnished by detail from some branch of this Department.
    “ Very respectfully, Thos. Ryan,
    
      “Acting Secretary.”
    “ Treasury Department,
    “ Office of ti-ie Secretary,
    “ Washington, May 10,1901.
    
    “ The honorable the Secretary of ti-ie INterior.
    “ Sir : Referring to your letter of May 8, 1901, you are informed that Mr. J. E. Woodwell, inspector of electric-light plants, has been directed to confer with E. M. Dawson, chief clerk, Department of the Interior, relative to the installation of an electric light, heat, and power plant in the old Post-Office Department building in this city.
    “ Respectfully,
    “(Signed) L. J. Gage, Secretary."
    
    “ Order.] DepartmeNT oe the INTERIOR,
    0 ' “ Washington, June 21,1901.
    
    “A board to consist of Mr. Edward M. Dawson, chief clerk of the Department; Mr. J. E. Woodwell, inspector of electric-light plants, Treasury Department, and Mr. Joseph S. Hill, engineer, etc., ‘General Post-Office,’ is hereby'constituted to, from time to time, open bids and recommend awards of contracts for the work embraced in the installation of the electric-lighting plant for the buildings of the Interior Department, and in the improvement of the heating of the Patent Office building.
    “ The board will meet at the office of the chief clerk of the Department at such times as may be designated by advertisement for opening proposals for the work.
    “ E. A. Hitchcock, Secretary.
    
    “ Official copy for Mr. J. E. Woodwell.
    “(Signed) Edwaed M. DawsoN,
    “ Chief Clerh.
    
    “(Through the honorable the Secretary oe the Treas’-ury.) ”
    “ Treasury DepartmeNT,
    “ Oeeice oe the Secretary,
    “ Washington, November 23,1901.
    
    “ The honorable the Secretary oe the Interior.
    “ Sir: Referring to your letter of November 21, 1901, requesting that Mr. J. E. Woodwell, inspector of electric-light plants, Treasury Department, be instructed to conduct a test of the engines and dynamos being manufactured by the Ridgway Dynamo and Engine Company, Ridgway, Pa., for the Interior Department, I have the honor to state that owing to prior and important instructions it will be impracticable for Mr. Woodwell to make the test the 25th instant, as desired by you.
    
      “ You are advised, however, that if the .matter can be held in.abeyance until December 2, 1901, Mr. Woodwell will be instructed to make the test.
    “ Respectfully,
    “(Signed) H. A. Taylor.
    
      “Acting Secretary.”
    “ DEPARTMENT OE THE INTERIOR,
    “ Washington, January H, 190H.
    
    “ Mr. J. E. Woodwell,
    
      “Inspector of Electric Lighting, ,
    
    
      “ Treasury Department.
    
    “ Sir : Permission having been obtained from the Secretary of the Treasury for you to perform such service, you are hereby authorized and directed to proceed to R-idgway, Pa., as the representative of this Department at shop tests to be made commencing on Monday next, the 6th instant, of the engines and dynamos to be furnished by the Ridgway Dynamo and Engine Company, under contract with this Department. •
    “ There is herewith inclosed, for .your information' and guidance, a copy of the specifications of the ' contract, wherein it is provided that—
    “ ‘ The regulation, guaranteed efficiency, heating effect, and insulation resistance shall be determined by actual test in the presence of the Department’s authorized inspector, who shall determine test conditions. The tests to be made at the shops where the dynamos are constructed, upon due notification by contractors of their readiness to commence said test,' and at the expense of the contractor, except traveling and other necessary expenses of Department’s agent. Should the test be delayed or require repetition for any reason for which the contractor is justly responsible, the cost of the delayed or any subsequent test, including the traveling and other necessary expenses of the Department’s agent, shall be at the expense of the contractor.’
    “ Mr. L. K. Sager, of this Department (Patent Office), will be detailed to accompany you and assist in making the tests.
    “ Your actual expenses while engaged upon this service will be paid by this Department upon presentation of proper accounts and vouchers from funds available.
    “ Yery respectfully,
    “(Signed)- Thos. Ryan,
    
      “Acting Secretary.”
    
      IY. Thereafter, and as a result of said correspondence, the claimant, as such mechanical and electrical engineer, performed certain services in and about the installation of said electric lighting plant and heating plant, between the 10th day of May, 1901, and the 1st day of February, 1902, and devoted eight hundred and ninety-seven hours to said service, and also necessarily expended $110 in connection therewith.
    Y. Such services rendered by the claimant were performed outside of his regular office hours as such employee in the Treasury Department, and during the time of the rendition thereof he also fully discharged his duties as such employee in the Treasury Department.
    
      Mr. W. 11. Woodwell for claimant. Mr. William .11. Robeson was on the brief.
    Section 1764, Eevised Statutes, does not apply to this case. The provisions of the statute are as follows:
    “No allowance’or compensation shall be made to any officer or clerk, by reason of the discharge of duties which belong to any other officer or clerk in the same or any other Department; and no allowance or compensation shall be made for any extra services whatever which any officer or clerk may be required to perform, unless expressly authorized by law.” t
    There are two classes of cases in which compensation is prohibited by this statute. First, where the duties discharged belong to any other officer or clerk in the same or any other Department. The services rendered by the claimant in this case were not the duties of any other officer.or clerk. They were rendered in the .performance of a special undertaking. It constituted temporary employment merely. A mechanical plant was to be-installed, as provided by a special act and appropriation for that purpose. Upon the completion of the work nothing was left to be done of this nature.
    There was no one available in the Department of tho Interior who was fitted by training or experience to prepare the plans and specifications for or supervise the construction of this plant. It was not the duty of any employee of that Department unless made so by instructions from the Secretary or other officer. The Secretary of the Interior was acquainted with the fact that work of a similar character was being performed upon the public buildings throughout the country under the control of the Treasury Department, and therefore he requested the Secretary of the Treasury to designate a competent employee who might undertake the work. The claimant was the man designated in response to this request. It can not be said that he discharged the duties belonging to any other officer or clerk.
    The second class of cases in which compensation is expressly prohibited are for “ any extra services whatever, which any officer or clerk may be required to perform, unless expressly authorized by law.” The work performed did not constitute “ extra services.” It was a distinct service. It was totally apart from his regular duties. The Secretary of the Treasury has no authority to require an employee of the Treasury Department to perform services on buildings not under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department. ■ Certainly the Secretary of the Interior could not command or instruct an employee of the Treasury Department to perform services for him or on any work under his executive control. Therefore it must be considered that the work performed in the present instance was entirely separate and apart from any duties which the claimant might have been called upon to perform in connection with his regular employment.
    The questions raised in this case have been before the court in a number of decided cases. In case of Crosthwaite v. The United States (30 C. Cls. K.., 300) the claimant was awarded a judgment, notwithstanding the fact that the services for which compensation was claimed were performed at the request of the Attorney-General, in whose Department the claimant was a special assistant attorney.
    In all the cases which have been presented to this honorable court the determining question has been whether the services were “ additional or extra service ” or were “ distinct employments, each with its own duties.”
    If the services rendered by the claimant in the present case had been those which he might have been called upon to render in the course of his regular official duties, he would have received instructions from the chief clerk of his Department directing him to undertake the work. There would have been no occasion for the interchange of communications by the heads of the two Executive Departments, “ requesting that a competent person may be designated, etc.,” and stating that the “ Secretary of the Treasury kindly consented to allow Mr. Woodwell ” to perform such duty. The claimant would have performed the work, or so much thereof as possible, within the hours of his regular employment. The days which he gave to this work would not have been accounted a part of the annual leave to which he was entitled as an employee of the Treasury Department.
    The case of Peter Collier v. The United States (22 C. Cls. B,., 125) i? identical with the case at bar and the attention of the court is respectfully called to that case.
    
      Mr. Felix Brannigan (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Van Orsdel) for the defendants.
   BaRney, J.,

delivered the opinion of the-court:

It appears without contradiction in this case that the claimant was an inspector of electric light plants employed in the Treasury Department, receiving a salary of $2,000 per annum, and was such employee at the times hereinafter mentioned.

The sundry civil appropriation act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1902, provided for the installation of an electric light plant for the Department of the Interior buildings, and for improvement in the heating of the Patent Office building, in the following language:

“ For the establishment of -an electric lighting plant for buildings occupied by offices of Department of the Interior, the Patent Office building, the old Post-Office building, now occupied by the General Land and Indian bureaus, and the Pension Office building, and for improvement in the heating of the Patent Office building, including necessary conduits, the laying and construction of which are hereby authorized, the sum of seventy-four thousand dollars.” (31 Stat. L., 1156.)

There being no person then employed in the Interior Department competent for that purpose, certain correspondence took.place between the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Treasury as to the authorization of some person connected with the Treasury Department to prepare detailed plans and specifications for such lighting and heating plant, and for other services in connection with said work, all of which appears in the findings herein.

Thereupon the claimant was directed by the Secretary of the Treasury to render this required assistance; and although the language of these' directions is somewhat indefinite as to just what he was required to do, it appears that he did the principal part of the work in preparing these plans and specifications, and also rendered valuable assistance thereafter in the supervision and inspection of said work.

It appears that he Avas thus employed about eight hundred and ninety-seven hours, and that this work was all done outside of his regular office hours, and some of it during the time which he could haA^e taken for his vacation; also that during all this time he attended regularly and acceptably to his duties as such official in the Treasury Department.

It must be admitted that these facts present a strong equitable case in faAmr of the claimant, and AAre should be in favor of making a reasonable allowance for him were it not for the fact that in our opinion the laAv forbids us so to do. It might be well to say here that in its general application Ave believe this law to be Avise and beneficent.

The following provisions of the Revised Statutes prohibit additional and double compensation to Government employees :

“ Seo. 1763. No person who holds an office, the salary or annual compensation attached -to Avhich amounts .to the sum of tAvo thousand five hundred dollars, shall receive compensation for discharging the duties of any other office, unless expressly authorized by law.
“ Sec. 1764. No allowance or compensation shall be made to any officer or clerk by reason of the discharge of duties which belong to any other officer or clerk in the same or any other Department; and no alloAvance or compensation shall be made for any extra services whatever, which any officer or clerk may be required to perform, unless expressly authorized by law.
“ Seo. 1765. No officer in any branch of the public service, or any other person whose salary, pay, or emoluments 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 for any other service or duty whatever, unless the same is authorized by law, and the appropriation therefor explicitly states that it is for such additional pay, extra allowance, or compensation.”

These statutes, upon first inspection, would appear so plain in their provisions and in their application as hardly to admit of contention as to their proper construction. They have, however, been reviewed both by this court and the Supreme Court in several well-considered cases. For that reason it would hardly serve a useful purpose to review them in this case or to do little more than merely to refer to them. (Hoyt v. United States, 10 How., 109; Converse v. United States, 21 How., 463; Hall v. United States, 91 U. S., 559; United States v. Saunders, 120 U. S., 126; United States v. King, 147 U. S., 676.)

The rule governing these cases would appear to be but little more than a mere paraphrase of the statutes, but that is well done in the case of Hall v. United States (supra), and is as follows :

“ Nor can any compensation for extra services be allowed * * * unless it appear that the head of the Department was authorized by an act of Congress to appoint an agent to perform the extra service; that the compensation to be paid for the service was fixed by law; that the service to be performed had respect to matters wholly outside of the duties appertaining to the oifice held by the agent, and that the money to pay for the extra services had been- appropriated by Congress.”

It has been held in several cases that these statutes are not •applicable to those cases where two distinct offices, places, or employments, each of which has its own duties and its own compensation, are both held by one person at the .same time. (United States v. Saunders, 120 U. S., 126, and cases cited.)

In the present case, conceding that the rendition of the services was authorized by law, certainly there was no “ appropriation therefor explicitly stating that it was for such additional pay, extra allowance, or compensation.” Nor is it shown that the claimant was directed to perform these services outside of his regular office hours; on the contrary, it appears that each action was entirely voluntary on his part.

Neither can it be contended that the claimant held two distinct offices or places, each of which had its own duties and compensation. On the contrary, the services performed were merely incidental to a work appropriated for in general terms, and without making any explicit provision for their payment.

It is therefore ordered that the petition be dismissed.  