
    SCHAEFFER’S CASE.
    Edward M. Schaeffer v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      The clai/mant is employed in the Sargeon-General’s Office under an express contract. In consequence of certain legislation of Congress, and without fault on his part, the contract is annulled, and he is discharged at the close of the fiscal year in 1874. Congress provide that “ clerks and employés of the Executive Departments” discharged at the close of the fiscal year, without fault on their part, hut hy reason of the reductions made necessary hy legislation, shall receive two months’ pay. But the two months’ pay is refused to the claimant on the ground that the Swgeon-General’s Office is not a bureau or division of an Executive Department, and that persons employed under express contracts are contractors and not “employés” within the intent of the statute.
    
    I. The Joint Resolution 23d June, 1874, (18 Stat. L., Pt. Ill, p. 289,) provides for the payment of two months’ pay to certain discharged “ clerics and employés of the Executive Departments.” It extends to a person whose services were rendered under an express contract, and whose employment was not the result of an appointment to an office or position the compensation of which is fixed hy law.
    II. An employé in the Surgeon-General’s Office in Washington is an employé of an Executive Department within the intent of certain statutes allowing additional compensation to employés of the Executive Departments in Washington.
    
      The Reporters’ statement of the case :
    The contract in this case, under which the claimant’s services were rendered, was in the following terms:
    “This contract, entered into this 1st day of March, 1871, at Washington, in the Dist. of Columbia, between the Surgeon-General of the United States Army and Dr. E. M. Schaeffer, of Washington,'in the Dist. of Columbia, witnesseth that, for the consideration hereinafter mentioned, the said Dr. Schaeffer promises and agrees to perform the duties of a medical officer, agreeably to Army Eegulations, at Washington, D. 0., and the said Surgeon-General promises and agrees, on behalf of the United States, to pay, or cause .to be paid, to the said Dr. Schaeffer the sum of one hundred (100) dollars for each and every month he shall continue to perform the services above stated; and it is furthermore agreed that at the expiration of his term of service the said Dr. Schaeffer shall receive return-transportation in kind to the place of making the contract; provided said contract is not annulled for misconduct or neglect of duty, in which case no return-transportation will be furnished.' All of which shall be his full compensation, and in lieu of all allowances and emoluments, fuel and quarters excepted.- This contract to continue at least one year, if not sooner determined by the general commanding the military division or department, the medical director, or the Surgeon-General.”
    In regard to his services and discharge the court found the following facts:
    I. The claimant, during the fiscal year ending June 30,1874, was employed in the Surgeon-General’s Office at Washington, on microscopical and other work assigned him by the officer under whose immediate charge he was, at a salary of $1,200 a year.
    II. On the 30th June, 1874, he was discharged without fault on his part by reason of a reduction of the force in the Surgeon-General’s Office, consequent upon the Act 23d June, 1875, (18 Stat. L., p. 244, § 4,) and he was not re-appointed within six months from the date of his discharge, which was in the following terms:
    “ War Department, Surgeon-General’s Oepioe,
    “ Washington, D. O., June 29th, 1874.
    “ Congress at its last session having prohibited the continuance of acting assistant surgeons on duty at this office, except those employed in connection with the completion of the Medical and Surgical History of the War, the contract with Dr. E. M. Schaeffer is hereby annulled, to take effect July 1st, 1874.
    “ By order of the Surgeon-General.
    “ O. H. CRANE,
    
      u Assistant Surgeon-General, D. S. Army.
    
    “ Dr. Schaeeeer.”
    
      Mr. J. W. Smith for the claimant.
    
      Mr. Assistant Attorney- General Simons for the defendants.
   Nott, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The Joint Resolution 23d June, 1874, (18 Stat. L., Pt. Ill, p. 289,) authorized the payment of two months’ pay u to such clerks and employes of the Executive Departments in Washington as shall be discharged at the close of the present fiscal year without fault on their part, but by reason of the reductions made necessary by the legislation of the present session of OongressP Upon this enactment two questions arise, both of which we think, in effect, have been determined by the Supreme Court.

The first of these questions is whether the joint resolution extends to a person in an Executive Department whose services were rendered under a contract, and . whose employment was not the result of an appointment to an office or position the compensation of which is fixed by law. That question arose in the Twenty-per-cent. Cases, (9 C. Cls. R., p. 103,) and was resolved by the Supreme Court in favor of the claimant. In the previous cases (7 C. Cls. R., p. 290) the Supreme Court had said u persons so employed are properly in the service, if they were employed by the head of the Department or of the bureau, or any division of the Department charged with that duty and authorized to make such contracts and fix the compensation of the person employed, even though the particular employment may not be designated in any appropriation act.” In the latter cases the Supreme Court carried this principle in its practical application to every variety of employós, including mechanics, machinists, and day-laborers, giving to the term “ employé ” its most comprehensive signification. The keeper of the gate at the Capitol, the watchman at the crypt, a laborer on the public grounds, a watchman at the public stables, and the police of the Capitol were all held to be employés within the meaning of the resolution. We must therefore answer the question here by saying that the term “ employé,” as used in the resolution, has a sufficiently broad signification to embrace the case of one who rendered clerical services in an Executive Department in Washington, though the services were rendered under an express agreement. '

The second question is whether an employé in the Surgeon-General’s Office in Washington is an employé in an Executive Department. This question has also been decided by the Supreme Court in Wilde's Case, (9 C. Cls. R., p. 103-106.) The claimant there was employed in the Medical Department of the Army at Washington, but by the authority of the Surgeon-General. His counsel contended (p. 115) that this made him “ an employé”of the Surgeon-General, and that u tlia Surgeon-General’s Office is a part of the War Department.” In this court the contrary had been held upon the ground that employés of the Medical Departmentare paidoutof appropriations for the Army, whereas the Surgeon-General’s Office is recognized in the annual appropriations made by Congress as a part of the War Department. (9 C. Cls. R., p. 312.) But the Supreme Court, on an appeal, overruled this distinction, and sustained the position of the claimant. Whatever differences exist between the case of Wilde and the case now before us are on the side of the present claimant, and whatever doubts we might have felt in regard to his right to recover are completely removed by these decisions of the Supreme Court.

The judgment of the court is that the claimant recover of the defendants the sum of $200.

Richardson, J., was absent when this decision was announced.  