Opinion of the Court.

States commissioner for the District of Louisiana. The petition alleged that proceedings were commenced before him as such commissioner in 8283 cases, and that under § 1986, Rev. Stat., he was entitled to ten dollars for each case. A demurrer thereto having been sustained, and a judgment of dismissal rendered, his executrix, the present appellant-he having died pending the suit-appealed to this court, and here the judgment of the Court of Claims was reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings. 151 U. S. 179.

In the opinion then filed this court, while disapproving of the contention that the mere multitude of cases was proof of a lack of good faith, at the same time distinctly recognized that no cause of action arose against the government unless the proceedings, judicial in form, were instituted and carried on in good faith and with a view to the arrest and punishment of offenders; and the case was remanded in order that that question of fact might be considered and determined. Thereafter a trial was had in the Court of Claims, and upon the testimony presented that court found, in its sixth finding, as follows: "From said facts the court finds the ultimate fact to be that the claimant's testator did not perform the services for the United States in good faith for the purpose of enforcing the criminal law." And upon this finding judgment was entered in favor of the defendant. From which judgment the plaintiff has again appealed to this court.

If nothing else were before us than the conclusion of the Court of Claims, expressed in the sixth finding, there would be little for consideration; because, as was held when the case was here before, a lack of good faith on the part of a commissioner may rightfully be pleaded in bar of any claim against the United States for compensation.

But the contention is that this sixth finding is dependent on facts stated in the prior findings, and that they do not warrant the conclusion. Those findings show that "the prosecutions were the result of a purpose on the part of party managers to purge, as they alleged, the register of illegal voters;" that the commissioner made no " inquiry or examination of witnesses to satisfy himself of probable cause," but

Opinion of the Court.

simply "issued warrants on the affidavits" filed, and that the warrants were not signed by himself but by a number of clerks who used, until broken, a stamp, which made a fac-simile of his signature, and thereafter simply wrote his name; that of the 8283 persons against whom warrants were issued, about 2000 were persons of respectability and character, residents of the city of New Orleans, and these facts being disclosed the prosecutions were summarily dismissed. It appears further that "in the issuance of warrants the commissioner exercised no discretion, and made no personal examination of the complaints or witnesses, but issued a warrant in all cases in which a complaint was made;" "that the warrants were issued generally for the purpose of affecting the register of votes to be used in the election, and not to arrest and punish offenders;" that in a large majority of the 1303 cases in which the defendants were discharged it does not appear that the commissioner "performed any service in investigating the offences charged, nor in judicially determining the guilt or innocence of the parties." Further findings show that there were 120 persons swearing to the affidavits, each affidavit being sworn to by two persons, there being sixty groups of two persons, and that these affidavits were filed against persons who had registered for the purpose of voting at elections prior to that of 1876, and who, in the meantime, had removed from the ward or voting precinct in which they had theretofore been registered, but had not caused their names to be changed by the supervisors of registration.

Do these facts justify the conclusion stated in the sixth finding? What is a judicial proceeding, and what function does a commissioner perform in instituting a criminal prosecution? Is it partisan in any sense of the term? May a judicial officer exercise the powers conferred upon him to aid any party or faction in respect to a coming election? It seems that the mere statement of the inquiry carries an answer in condemnation. The very thought of a judicial office is that its functions are not partisan or political, and that he who occupies such office stands indifferent to all questions of mere party success.

VOL. CLXI-41

Syllabus.

It carries, also, the further thought that in the discharge of his judicial functions the magistrate exercises a personal and judicial consideration of every charge made, and subjects no one to the annoyance and disgrace of arrest until after personal and careful investigation he, as a magistrate, believes him to be guilty of a violation of law. The idea of a perfunctory discharge of these duties, of a transfer of responsibility to mere clerks, of a wholesale proceeding against a multitude of citizens without personal inquiry as to the probability of the charge against each, is something abhorrent to the true and reasonable understanding of the conditions of judicial action. The testimony is not preserved, and we must rest upon the findings of fact made by the Court of Claims, and upon them, irrespective of what may be considered in the sixth finding as partially a conclusion of law, it is evident that the action of the commissioner was in no just sense the action of a judicial officer, instituted for the sake of upholding the laws of the United States and the punishment of crime. The facts, as stated in the prior findings, we unhesitatingly affirm, justify the conclusions stated in the sixth finding, and we therefore hold that the services rendered by the commissioner were partisan rather than judicial, and as such entitled to no compensation from the government.

The judgment is

Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE took no part in the consideration and decision of this case.

OWENS v. HENRY.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.

No. 143. Argued and submitted March 18, 1896.- Decided March 80, 1896.

In June, 1861, O. recovered judgment in a Pennsylvania court for the recovery of a sum of money against H. and F., both residents of that State. In 1865 H. removed to Louisiana, and became a citizen of that State and

Statement of the Case.

continued so until his death. In 1866 the judgment was revived by scire facias, process being served on F. only. In 1871 it was in like manner revived. In 1880 O. proceeded on the judgment against H. in the courts of Louisiana, where a judgment is barred by prescription in ten years from its rendition. Being compelled to elect upon which judgment he relied, he elected to stand upon the scire facias judgment of 1871. Held, that, viewed as a new judgment rendered as in an action of debt, the judgment had no binding force in Louisiana, as H. had not been served with process or voluntarily appeared; and considered as in continuation of the prior action and a revival of the original judgment for purposes of execution, it operated merely to keep in force the local lien, and, for the same reason, it could not be availed of as removing the statutory bar of the lex fori.

JUNE 17, 1861, judgment was entered on a bond and warrant of attorney, dated March 1, 1861, for ten thousand dollars, conditioned for the payment of five thousand dollars on the second day of March, 1861, with interest, in favor of Bernard Owens against John Henry and James Feeny in the District Court for the county and city of Philadelphia, now the Court of Common Pleas No. 3, for the county of Philadelphia, State of Pennsylvania, and execution was issued thereon that day. February 3, 1866, a scire facias to revive this judgment was issued returnable the first Monday of March, and served upon Feeny, but returned nihil habet as to John Henry. And a second writ was issued March 19, 1866, and returned nihil. The docket entries show: "Ap'l 21, 1866. Judg't for want of an affidavit of defence," but damages were not assessed until March 17, 1871, when they were entered at $6525. On that day a sci. fa. to revive this latter judgment was issued returnable the first Monday of April, 1871, and returned nihil, and April 11 an alias was issued returnable the first Monday of May, 1871, with a like return.

May 10, 1871, judgment was rendered "for want of an appearance on two returns of nihil," and damages assessed at $8482.50. The record shows the assessment was made up of the amount of the prior judgment, (assessed March 17, 1871, but treated as of the date of the interlocutory judgment,) $6525, interest from April 21, 1866, $1957.50, "real debt, $8482.50."

At the time the original judgment was rendered, John

Counsel for Parties.

Henry was a citizen of the State of Pennsylvania, but he removed to the State of Louisiana in 1865, and became a citizen of that State, residing there from September 5, 1865, until his death, January 3, 1892.

November 1, 1880, Bernard Owens, who was a citizen of Pennsylvania, filed his petition in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana against John Henry, as a citizen of Louisiana, setting forth the recovery of judgment against Henry and Feeny June 17, 1861, and the issue of the writs of scire facias, upon which he recovered judgment May 10, 1871, in the sum of $8482.50, with interest from that date, together with costs, and prayed judgment, with interest and costs. Henry appeared and filed peremptory exceptions to the petition, which exceptions were sustained, and the plaintiff allowed to amend by declaring on which judgment he relied. Thereupon, Owens filed his supplemental petition, in which he elected to stand upon the scire facias judgment of May 10, 1871. Defendant again excepted, and also answered that since September 5, 1865, he had been a citizen and resident of Louisiana, and for and during that time had not been a citizen of Pennsylvania, nor domiciled in said State, nor in any manner represented therein, nor been in any manner, by himself or his property, subject to the laws of the State of Pennsylvania; also pleading nul tiel record, and denying that the courts of Pennsylvania ever acquired jurisdiction over him by service or by voluntary appearance.

The case was submitted to the court for trial, a jury being waived, the issues found for defendant, and judgment entered dismissing the suit. While the case was under consideration, Henry died, and it was revived as against his testamentary executor, McCloskey. Thereupon a writ of error was sued out from this court.

Mr. George A. King for plaintiff in error.

Mr. W. S. Benedict filed a brief for same.

No appearance for defendant in error.