« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
in the act of July 31, 1894 (28 Stat., 204), and submits the same for approval, disapproval, or modification by the Comptroller. The decision is as follows:
“ Mr. Sproule claims a double maximum compensation as provided by section 840, Revised Statutes.
66 The act of July 31, 1894 (28 Stat., 204), provides:
66 • That the marshals, clerks, and district attorneys of the districts of Washington, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota shall, for the services they may perform during the fiscal year herein provided for, receive the fees allowed by law to like officers performing similar duties in the districts of Oregon and Idaho.
66 Under Section 840, Revised Statutes, clerks of United States courts are entitled to double fees and double maximum compensation in Oregon, and the act of July 3, 1890 (26 Stat., 218), gives to officers in Idaho similar fees and compensation allowed by law to same officers in Oregon. As the act of July 31, 1894, provides for clerks in the district of Montana only the same fees as allowed in the districts of Oregon and Idaho, I can not believe that it was the intention of Congress to double the compensation as well, and therefore decide that Mr. Sproule is entitled to double fees, but not to double compensation.
66 The account will be suspended until the Comptroller has acted upon this decision, as required by section 8, act of July 31, 1894."
The construction placed by the Auditor upon the clause quoted by him from the act of July 31, 1894, is approved.
That a distinction may properly be drawn between the fees which a clerk is entitled to receive for the services rendered by him and the compensation which he is entitled to retain for his own use, was shown in the Comptroller's decision of October 25, in the account of J. A. Montgomery (ante, p. 210). The fees which a clerk, like other officers of the United States courts, is entitled to receive are fixed by certain sections of the Revised Statutes, beginning with section 824, and are collectible from individuals as well as from the United States. They do not constitute the compensation of the various officers, but do constitute a fund from which the various officers are obliged to pay the expenses of their respective offices, and are authorized to retain certain maximum sums for their personal compensation.
In section 828, Revised Statutes, is stated the fees which clerks of the district and circuit courts are entitled to charge for the services rendered by them. Section 839 authorizes these clerks to retain out of the fees and emoluments of their offices $3,500 a year for their personal compensation, Section 840 is as follows:
“The clerks of the several circuit and district courts in California, Oregon, and Nevada shall be entitled to charge and receive double the fees hereinbefore allowed to clerks, and shall be allowed, respectively, by the Attorney-General, to retain of the fees so received by them, for their personal compensation, over and above the necessary expenses of their offices, includ. ing the salaries of deputy clerks and necessary clerk hire, to be audited by the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department, any sum not exceeding seven thousand dollars a year nor exceeding that rate for any time less than a year." * *
The careful manner in which this section is drawn, the first part of which provides for double fees and the second part of which provides for double compensation, clearly indicates the difference between the use of the words “fees” and “compensation,” which is apparent throughout all the various sections of chapter 16, title 13, Revised Statutes.
Section 16 of the act “To provide for the admission of the State of Idabo into the Union," of July 3, 1890 (26 Stat., 215), in part provides:
“The marshal, district attorney, and clerks of the circuit and district courts of said district * * * shall, for the services they may perform, receive the fees and compensation allowed by law to other similar officers and persons performing similar duties in the State of Oregon.”
The distinction between fees and compensation in this act is maintained.
The clause in the act of July 31, 1894, construed by the Auditor, authorizes the officers therein specified to “receive the fees allowed by law to like officers performing similar duties in the districts of Oregon and Idaho.” This clearly authorizes such officers to charge, both to the Government and to private litigants, double the fees allowed to other like officers, because such double fees are authorized by section 840, Revised Statutes, and by section 16 of the act of July 3, 1890, above quoted, to like officers in Oregon and Idabo.
But, unlike those sections, the clause in the act of July 31, 1894, does not provide that the officers therein enumerated shall also receive the compensation which like officers in Oregon and Idaho receive. It may well be that Congress intended to double the fees which these officers might collect, in order the more easily to reach the maximum compensation allowed to them by law, without also intending to increase that maximum, and as Congress has always clearly expressed its intention when it desired to increase the maximuni compensation of court officers, it is to be presumed that it was not the intention in the present case to authorize such increase by the provision in the act of July 31, 1894.
R. B. BOWLER,
USE OF APPROPRIATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A STEAM TUG IN ITS CARE AND MAINTENANCE.
The balance remaining of the appropriation in the act of March 2, 1895,
for the “purchase or construction of one steam tng" is not available for the care and maintenance of the same, even during the remainder of the current fiscal year in which the tug was procured.
November 23, 1895. SIR: I have, by your direction, the letter of Lieut. Commander D. Delehanty, U. S. N., of November 18, 1895, to Brig. Gen. William P. Craighill, Chief of Engineers, requesting authority to use the unexpended balance of an appropriation for the construction of a steam tug for use in New York Harbor.
You ask the opinion of the Comptroller as to whether
“This balance, or so much thereof as may be necessary, can be applied to the care and maintenance of this boat for the remainder of the current fiscal year.”
The item of the appropriation bill making provision for this steam tug reads as follows:
“ Harbor of New York: For prevention of obstructive and in jurious deposits within the harbor and adjacent waters of New York City: For pay of inspectors and deputy inspectors, office force, and expenses of office, fifteen thousand dollars; for pay of crew and maintenance of steamer Argus, eight thousand dollars; for pay of crew and maintenance of steamer Nimrod, ten thousand dollars; for pay of crew and maintenance of one steam tug, heretofore authorized by law, twelve thousand dollars, to be immediately available; for purchase or construction of one steam tug, forty-five thousand dollars, or so much thereof as may be necessary, to be immediately available; in
all, ninety thousand dollars." (Sundry civil act, March 2, 1895; 28 Stat., 951.)
From this it is perfectly apparent that the $45,000 can be used only for the purchase or construction of a steam tug, and not the maintenance or care of the same, and in this very item, in the case of the other steamers used for the same purpose, there are specific amounts appropriated “for pay of crew and maintenance of steamer." Respectfully, yours,
EDW. A. BOWERS,
Assistant Comptroller. The SECRETARY OF WAR.
IN RE APPEAL OF J. B. SHIELDS, U. S. COMMIS-
of the proceedings of each particular day as a single continuous entry, under a rule of court requiring such entries to be made on the day the transactions occur.
November 25, 1895. Mr. J. B. Shields, a United States commissioner for the northern district of Alabama, appeals from the settlement by the Auditor for the State and other Departments of his account for the quarter ending March 31, 1895, and asks a revision of the same by the Comptroller.
Among other items the Auditor disallowed certain charges for making entries on docket," in regard to which the commissioner says that the charges were made in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of United States V. Allred (155 U. S., 591), said entries being required by rule 4 of the rules for United States commissioners in the northern district of Alabama. So much of said rule as applies to the question now under consideration is as follows:
" Each commissioner shall keep a well-bound book as a docket, in which he shall enter, on the day the transactions occur, the issuing of each warrant, upon whose complaint and request the same was issued, the nature of the offense, and the officer to whom the warrant was delivered for service, together with the proceedings had under the said warrant; there shall be entered the names of the witnesses present and examined,
11268—VOL 2- 17
and their fees, the name of the guard, if any, and his fees, together with the marshal's or deputy's fees.”
It is clear under the decision in United States v. Allred (supra) that the commissioner is entitled to folio fees for mak. ing on his docket all entries required by said rule. As the rule requires that the commissioner shall enter on the day the transactions occur the proceedings therein specified, folio fees will be allowed for the record of the proceedings of each particular day as a single continuous entry.
R. B. BOWLER,
IN RE APPROPRIATION FOR MISCELLANEOUS EX. PENSES OF THE BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING.
The appropriation for miscellaneous expenses of the Bureau of Engraving
and Printing is not available for the purchase of items for which provision is made in the appropriations for the contingent expenses of the Treasury Department, the latter appropriations specifically including "all buildings under control of the Treasury in Washington."
November 27, 1895. The Auditor for the Treasury Department made a new construction of the appropriation, “Materials and miscellaneous expenses, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, 1896,” and certifies the same to the Comptroller for his approval, disapproval, or modification, in accordance with the provisions of section 8 of the act of July 31, 1894 (28 Stat., 208). The action of the Auditor was as follows:
“I have decided to disallow the voucher of the McDermott Carriage Company for $675 for one coupe rockaway for Claude M. Johnson, Chief of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, which is included as a voucher in the account of Alex. G. Morgan, disbursing agent of said Bureau, for the month of September, 1895, and paid from the appropriation for materials and miscellaneous expenses, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, 1896, for the reason that there being an appropriation for horses, wagons, etc., Treasury Departinent, 1896, said voucher should have been paid from that appropriation, and not from the appropriation for materials and miscellaneous expenses, Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
“It, however, having been the custom heretofore to allow for the purchase of horses, etc., from the appropriation for mate