1. A statute is to be interpreted not only by its exact words,
but also by its apparent general purpose. If its general purpose
have plain reference to one class of persons, it will not include a
single individual in a distinct class, though the mere words might
include him.
2. The Botanical Garden at Washington, a long established public
garden, and regarded by various acts as under the immediate
direction and control of the Joint Library Committee of Congress,
is a different garden from the garden established of more recent
years by the Department of Agriculture, an executive department, as
an appendage to that department.
3. The eighteenth section of the Act of July 28, 1866, providing
an increase of 20 percent in pay for several persons employed under
the direction of the two Houses of Congress or their committees,
including "the three superintendents of the public gardens," and
not providing for the pay of any employed in the executive
departments, does not embrace a Superintendent of the Public
Gardens of the Department of Agriculture. It is confined to the
superintendents of the Botanical Garden.
The Superintendent of the Public Garden of the Department of
Agriculture is provided for by a joint resolution of 28th of
February, 1867, which gives an increase in pay for one year to
persons employed in the executive departments.
On the 28th of July, 1866, Congress enacted: [
Footnote 1]
"That there be allowed and paid to the officers, clerks,
committee clerks, messengers, and all other employees of the Senate
and House of Representatives, and to the Globe and official
reporters of each House, and the stenographer of the House, and to
the Capitol police, and
the three superintendents of the public
gardens, their clerks and assistants, and to the Librarian,
assistant librarians, messengers, and other employees of the
Congressional Library, an addition of twenty percent on their
present pay, to commence with the present Congress."
This act was repealed July 12, 1870.
By a joint resolution of the 28th of February following, it was
resolved: [
Footnote 2]
Page 89 U. S. 493
"That there shall be allowed and paid to . . . its civil
officers, clerks, messengers, and watchmen and employees in the
executive mansion, and in any of the following named departments,
or any bureau thereof, to-wit, State, Treasury, War, Navy,
Interior, Post Office, Attorney General,
Agricultural, and
including civil officers and . . . clerks and employees in the
office of the coast survey, naval observatory, navy yard, arsenal,
paymaster general &c., and additional compensation of twenty
percent on their respective salaries as fixed by law &c., . . .
for one year."
With these two proceedings of Congress, the Act of 1866 and the
joint resolution of 1870 in force, one Saunders, who was engaged at
a salary in superintending the public gardens of the
Department
of Agriculture, at Washington, applied and got an addition of
20 percent to it under the joint resolution, for the one year,
during which the resolution gave the increase.
Subsequently, assuming that the Act of Congress was a continuing
act and not one making an allowance for one year only, and assuming
also
that his employment brought him within its
provisions, he filed a petition in the Court of Claims,
alleging that he was "Superintendent of Gardens in the Department
of Agriculture," from March 4, 1865, to July 1, 1870, and asking
the addition of 20 percent given by
the act of Congress
during that time.
The Court of Claims found as a fact that "he held the position
and performed the duties of Superintendent of the Public Gardens of
the Department of Agriculture," and during the time for which the
20 percent was claimed; and conceiving that he came within the act,
gave him the addition prayed for.
From this, its decision the United States appealed.
The only question considered by this Court was whether Saunders
was within the Act of Congress.
Page 89 U. S. 494
MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are clearly of opinion that the claimant, in this case, was
not within the intent and meaning of the eighteenth section of the
Act of July 28, 1866.
The Court of Claims finds, it is true, that he held the position
of superintendent of the public garden of the Agricultural
Department during the period for which the claim is made. But it is
well known that the botanical garden near the Capitol has been
regarded as a public garden for many years, and long before the
experimental garden of the Agricultural Department was established,
and that it was managed by a superintendent and assistant
superintendents. It is equally well known that this garden has for
a long period, if not always, been under the immediate direction
and control of the Joint Library Committee of Congress. The public
statutes contain a long series of appropriations for both garden
and superintendents. Thus, in the appropriation bill of July 2,
1864, for the year ending June 30, 1865, [
Footnote 3] the following appropriation was made:
"
Botanic Garden -- For grading, draining, procuring
manure, tools,
fuel, and repairs, purchasing trees and
shrubs, under the direction of the Library Committee of Congress,
$3300."
"For pay of superintendent of Botanic Garden, and assistants in
the Botanic Garden and greenhouses, to be expended under the
direction of the Library Committee of Congress, $6,145.80."
A similar provision is made in the appropriation bill for the
year ending June 30, 1866, adding $2,500 to be expended under
direction of the Joint Committee of the Library, for erecting four
greenhouses. [
Footnote 4] The
like appropriation for salaries was made in the appropriation bill
for the year ending June 30, 1867. [
Footnote 5] Then comes the act in question, increasing the
salaries 20 percent, to commence with that Congress, to-wit, March
4, 1865. The act increases the salaries of "the three
superintendents of the public gardens." Now, in the next
appropriation bill, for the year ending June 30, 1868, not only is
the ordinary appropriation
Page 89 U. S. 495
made for the "botanic garden under direction of the Library
Committee of Congress, $3,300," and,
"for pay of
superintendent and assistants, and
assistants in the botanic garden and greenhouse, under direction of
the Library Committee of Congress, $6,145.80,"
but a continuation of the 20 percentum is added, thus: "for 20
percentum additional on the pay of the above, $1,229.16." The
designation, "superintendent and assistants," implies at least
three in number. No such appropriation is found in reference to the
experimental garden attached to the Department of Agriculture.
Whilst the botanic garden, under the direction of the Joint Library
Committee of Congress, with its superintendent and assistants
eo nomine, have thus been the subject of appropriations
for a long period, the experimental garden, established by the
Department of Agriculture, was comparatively recent, and regarded
as an appendage of that department, and the appropriations therefor
had been made under the general head of appropriations for the said
department, and no appropriation for any superintendent thereof,
eo nomine, had ever been made up to the time of the
passage of the Act of July 28, 1866. The appropriation had been for
the "experimental garden," and for the salary of the foreman and
laborers. [
Footnote 6]
From this legislative history it is apparent that the botanic
garden near the Capitol was regarded as a public garden; that it
had a superintendent and assistant superintendents; that
appropriations had for years been made for their salaries as
superintendent and assistants by name; and that they were employed,
and the garden was managed, under the immediate direction of the
Joint Library Committee of the two Houses of Congress. They were,
in fact, employees of this committee.
Now it seems to us that the eighteenth section of the Act of
July 28, 1866, which provides for the addition of the 20 percentum
now claimed by the appellee, had reference only to persons employed
under the direction of the two Houses
Page 89 U. S. 496
of Congress, or their committees, and not to those of any of the
executive departments. The section itself is its own best
interpreter. In view of the long supervision over the botanic
garden by the Library Committee, and of the previous legislation
referred to, language could hardly be plainer than that which it
contains.
But there is additional evidence that this increase of salary
was intended to be confined to persons employed under the immediate
direction of the two Houses of Congress and their committees, in
the fact, that by a joint resolution of February 28th, 1867,
[
Footnote 7] 20 percent was
added to the salaries of all employees of the several executive
departments, including the Department of Agriculture, for one year
from and after the 30th of June, 1866; and the claimant actually
received such addition accordingly. It is not reasonable to suppose
that Congress intended to single out this particular employee from
all the government employees as alone entitled to a double addition
of 20 percent to his compensation, which he certainly would receive
for the year named, if his construction of the Act of July 28,
1866, is the correct one.
Judgment reversed and the cause remanded with directions to
dismiss the petition.
[
Footnote 1]
14 Stat. at Large 323.
[
Footnote 2]
14 Stat. at Large 569.
[
Footnote 3]
13 Stat. at Large 349.
[
Footnote 4]
14 Stat. at Large 21.
[
Footnote 5]
Ib. 193.
[
Footnote 6]
See the acts, 13 Stat. at Large 155; 14
id.
202.
[
Footnote 7]
14 Stat. at Large 569.
