one fee is allowed to the clerk. The fee is not for making a docket, but the law says it is "for making dockets" and for "all other services" mentioned in connection therewith.

A commissioner has but one docket. He does not issue venires, nor does he tax costs, unless the taxation of witness' fees comes under this head. It cannot properly be said that he renders judgments or decrees, within the meaning of the statute. The fee of "three dollars" preser bed for clerks of courts includes making (1) dockets, and (2) indexes, (3) issuing venires, (4) taxing costs, (5) and all other services. The commissioner has no "like services" of all these classes to perform. His docket is totally unlike any docket made by a clerk of court. The statute does not specifically require a commissioner to make any docket, and in providing fees it contemplates payment for those services only which he is required to perform. Section 1014 of the Revised Statutes requires copies of process, together with the recognizances of the witnesses, to be returned to the proper clerk, and for this service the commissioner is entitled to compensation. It is not necessary to decide whether this section also requires a docket to be kept. The courts have generally and properly required them. The question as to compensation for making these and for transcripts is not presented for decision on the claim now made. But the commissioner is not required by law to perform like services" as clerks, in all those cases in which the latter officers are respectively entitled to a fee of two dollars in one class of cases, and one dollar in another. It is clear that the docket services, if they may be so called, of a commissioner are not similar in all respects to those required of a clerk. So far as the services are similar, as for making entries in the docket, commissioners are entitled to payment. The commissioner is not, in respect of making dockets, required to perform any "like services" as clerks, and hence is not entitled to a fee, either of three, two, or one dollar, as a clerk is, in each case disposed of, "for making dockets and all other services." This has been the uniform usage adopted in this office in settling the accounts of commissioners. In following it now, the practice and decisions of former Comptrollers are respected and observed. No sufficient reason has been presented, or is perceived, to justify a change. There is a wide difference between the service in making entries in a docket, and all the services required of clerks for which the prescribed docket fees are paid.

*

The claim for a docket fee is disallowed.*

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

First Comptroller's Office, July 6, 1883.

At the October term, 1883, of the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Alabama, holden at Huntsville, an account was presented to the court for approval in favor of John C. Moore, a circuit court commissioner, for $806.40, including $122 for docket fees. The district attorney objected “to each and every item therein charged as a ‘docket fee,' and moved the court that the same be disapproved and disallowed." The motion was sustained by the court, and said charges, being sixty-one items, each for $2 "docket fee," were disallowed.

IN THE MATTER OF THE RIGHT OF A PARTY, WHO FURNISHES STATIONERY FOR A COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, TO PAYMENT THEREFOR BY THE UNITED STATES.-LEE'S CASE.

1. Long delay in presenting a claim against the United States to the proper accounting officers for allowance, is a strong circumstance against it.

2. Section 3145 of the Revised Statutes does not authorize a collector of internal revenue to impose a liability on the United States in favor of a person who supplies him with stationery for official use.

3. But, in any view of this section, a party who furnishes a collector with a receipted account for stationery, for which the collector receives credit in the settlement of his account as a disbursing officer, without objection from the party giving such receipt, is estopped from making a claim against the United States for payment.

Section 3145 of the Revised Statutes provides, that— "There shall be * paid after the account thereof has been rendered to, and approved by, the proper officers of the Treasury, to each collector [of internal revenue], his necessary and reasonable charges for advertising, stationery, and blank books used in the performance of his official duties."

Joshua F. Bailey was internal revenue collector of the fourth district of New York in April, 1869, and as sucb, presented, in his account of disbursements, the receipt of Daniel W. Lee & Co. to him as collector for payment for stationery in that month. This receipt was credited to the collector in the settlement of his account, without any notice to the accounting officers that payment had not in fact been made. It is now alleged, that the receipt was given without payment, and Daniel W. Lee asks for payment to be made by the United States. The claimants present other claims in the same condition. The question is presented to the First Comptroller to decide whether payment can be made.

The regulations of the Treasury Department, applicable to these claims, are as follow:

"Vouchers for stationery, blank books, postage, express, depositing money, and advertising.

"Vouchers for these items will be entered on Form 85, and the oath on the form must be filled. The bills must in all cases be made out in detail, showing the date, price, quantity, and character of each article purchased or expense incurred. All bills must be receipted by the parties giving them. The receipt of a clerk will not be accepted. Bills given by a firm must be receipted by a member of the firm, or a duly authorized agent of the firm. Express bills may be receipted by a regular agent of the company.

"The proper vouchers for postage are the receipted bills of the postmaster. These should be furnished in all cases in which it is possible to obtain them. Where these cannot be obtained, the certificate of the collector, showing the amount of postage used in the discharge of his official business, should be sent. The receipt of a deputy for postage will not be accepted, unless accompanied by a receipted bill of a postmaster. Bills for depositing money should show the amount deposited,

the rate per thousand, and the points between which it was transported. Bills for sending money from deputies to the collector will not ordinarily be allowed, as they are part of the expense of collecting, which must be paid out of the commissions.

"Collectors will send their money to the depositary in the cheapest manner consistent with safety.

"The size of envelopes purchased should be given, or a specimen sent. Bills for printing and advertising should be accompanied by a specimen of the printing and a copy of the advertisements. Handbills and posters will be treated as advertisements.

"Collectors will have no blanks printed at the expense of the Government, without first obtaining authority from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Charges for furniture, gold pens, penknives, and for expenses of fitting up offices, will not be allowed to collectors or assessors. Collectors will, as far as possible, supply their deputies with stationery and postage. When deputies are compelled to purchase for immediate use, they should obtain receipted bills made out in detail, the same as is required of the collector. These should be given to the collector. Collectors in purchasing stationery and blank books for Government uses are expected to exercise the same economy as if purchasing for their private business."

"Schedule of vouchers for stationery, postage, express, depositing money, advertising, and miscellaneous disbursements paid by J. F. Bailey, late Collector of the Fourth Dist. of New York, for the month ending April 30, 1869.

I, J. F. Bailey, late collector of District No. 4, in the State of New York, do solemnly swear that the foregoing statement is in all respects just and true, according to my best knowledge and belief; that the several items charged, as set forth in detail in the vouchers therein referred to, are at the reasonable and customary prices at the place where the charges were incurred; that each and all of them were necessary for the proper discharge of my official duties; that I have not received or retained, and am not entitled to receive or retain, for the benefit of myself or other persons, directly or indirectly, any portion of the sums disbursed; and that the disbursements charged were made in good faith.

J. F. BAILEY,

Collector.

Sworn and subscribed before me, this the 21st day of December, 1869.
[SEAL.]
JOSEPH P. BOLAND,
Notary Public.

J. T. Power, for the claimant.

1. The receipts furnished for stationery to the collector, Bailey, were, by regulation and practice of the Internal Revenue Bureau, prerequisites to receiving payment, and when claimants furnished stationery,

and gave receipts, they are not estopped from showing that no payment was made, nor from demanding payment of the Government. The col lector was the agent of the United States for the payment of the account. Sausser's case, 9 Court Cl., 338.

2. No payment has been made from the Treasury, on the faith of these receipts. This case does not fall within the rule in Sears' case, 7 Opinions, 40; McKnight v. the United States, 98 U. S., 179. There was no concealment, misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the claimants. 3. The Department had knowledge that no money had been paid. The receipts raise no presumption of payment. Such presumption is rebutted by the "regulation," the practice and knowledge of the usage. A presumption of fact only stands, until proof is given to the contrary. 2 Dall. Pa. R., 22; 4 Johns., N. Y., 287.

DECISION BY WILLIAM LAWRENCE, First Comptroller.

*

This claim cannot be paid. The long delay in presenting it, or in urg. ing its payment, is a strong circumstance against it. It has been well said, that "it is a rule of common sense and reason, as well as law, that when a party has lain by with a claim, until the evidence concerning it has ceased to exist, and then produces it, the other party is not bound to explain it." (9 Op. Att. Gen., 204.) But it is not necessary to place the disallowance upon any question of this kind. The usage is to pay claims, even of longer standing than this, on sufficient evidence. Sec. tion 3145 of the Revised Statutes was the law in force when this claim originated. It does not authorize a collector to impose a liability on the United States, in favor of a person who supplies him with stationery for official use. It simply provides, that approved accounts for stationery, shall, by the United States be "paid. to each collector,”not to parties who furnish the stationery to the collector. The statute declares, that the amount to be paid to the collector shall be "his nec essary and reasonable charges for stationery." It is because of this, that the collector is required to produce receipted accounts. The theory of the law is, that the collector makes the purchase, and pays for it in advance. If, in fact, he does not do so, and the stationer who furnishes supplies, chooses to give a receipt without payment, he relies solely on the personal liability of the collector to him. If he treats the collector as an agent to obtain money on receipted accounts, he makes the collector his agent, not that of the United States. There is no privity between the United States and Lee. (Herndon's case, 15 Ct. Cl., 446; s. c., 1 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 45; Landram's case, 16 Ct. Cl., 82; Hedrick and Warden's cases, 16 Ct. Cl., 88.) If the statute shou even authorize a collector to make purchases of stationery in the name of the United States, and to be paid for by the United States, the result in this case would not be changed. The "regulations" were author. ized by law. (Rev. Stats., 161.) Parties who deal with officers of the Government, are bound at their peril, to know the extent of their authority. (Exigency case, 3 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 92; Clark v. United

States, 95 U. S., 542; Strong v. District of Columbia, 1 Mackey, D. C. Rep., 272; Filor v. United States, 9 Wall., 48; Whiteside et al. v. United States, 93 U. S., 247; Merriam v. United States, 107 U. S., 437; s. C., 18 Ct. Cl., 760; s. c., 14 Ct. Cl., 289.) The receipted accounts required by the regulations are furnished, to authorize the accounting officers of the Treasury Department to give credit to collectors, in the settlement of their disbursing accounts. This is presumed to be known to stationers, who furnish supplies to collectors. The collectors thus become the agents of the stationers. On every principle of law, the claimants in this case are estopped from asserting any claim now against the United States. (Pray v. United States, 106 U. S., 594; s. c., 14 Ct. Cl., 256; Wilder's case, 18 Ct. Cl., 528; Buffalo Bayou R. R. case, Id., 238; Bailey's case, 15 Id., 490; Goodman v. Niblack, 102 U. S., 556; McKnight v. United States, 98 U. S., 180; s. c., 13 Ct. Cl., 292; Swain v. Seamens, 9 Wall., 254.)

The claims are disallowed.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

First Comptroller's Office, June 19, 1883.

IN THE MATTER OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE HEAD OF A DEPARTMENT TO APPOINT A CLERK IN THE DEPARTMENT ON THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY, 1883, WITHOUT AN EXAMINATION UNDER THE ACT APPROVED JANUARY 16, 1883, TO REGULATE AND IMPROVE THE CIVIL SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES.-STATUTE-TIME CASE.

1. The act to regulate and improve the civil service of the United States, approved January sixteenth, 1883, provides (Sec. 7) "that after the expiration of six months from the passage of this act no officer or clerk shall be appointed, and no person shall be employed to enter or be promoted in either of the said classes now existing, or that may be arranged hereunder pursuant to said rules, until he has passed an examination." Held: (1) This provision became operative on the sixteenth day of July, 1883. (2) Hence no appointment can be made on or after this day, until the person to be appointed has passed an examination as required by said act. An act of Congress which provides that it shall take effect "from and after its passage" takes effect and becomes operative from the first moment of the day on which such act is approved by the President.

The act to regulate and improve the civil service of the United States, "approved January sixteenth, 1883," contains a provision as follows:

"SEC. 7. That after the expiration of six months from the passage of this act no officer or clerk shall be appointed, and no person shall be employed to enter or be promoted in either of the said classes now existing, or that may be arranged hereunder pursuant to said rules, until he has passed an examination, or is shown to be specially exempted from such examination in conformity herewith.

July 16, 1883, the First Comptroller is asked to decide whether this provision is now in force.