The making of the oath and attaching the same to the accounts of
clerks of the circuit and district courts of the United States as
required by the act of February 22, 1875, is a part of the
formality of presenting the accounts and is not to be allowed
against the government in favor of the clerk.
An order of the court requiring a service to be performed is
sufficient authority as between the clerk and the government for
the performance of the service and the allowance of the proper fee
therefor.
Where no direction of the court can be shown charges cannot be
allowed for certificates to copies of orders.
Clause 4 of § 828, Rev.Stat., does not justify charges for
administering oaths on the
voir dire of grand and petit
jurors.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Page 193 U. S. 529
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: These are appeals from judgments of the Court
of Claims in respect of services alleged to have been rendered as
clerks of district or circuit courts of the United States. In each
case, the accounts for services had been duly approved by the
circuit or district court; certain items had been disallowed by the
accounting officers of the Treasury Department; thereupon these
suits were brought, and the Court of Claims made findings of fact
and conclusions of law. In view of the action of the two courts and
of our previous decisions, the points raised in argument do not
seem to require particular discussion.
In No.197 the judgment of the Court of Claims included, among
other items, this: "Administering oaths and affixing jurats to
accounts of United States marshals at ten cents for each oath and
fifteen cents for each jurat, $91.20."
By the Act of February 22, 1875, 18 Stat. 333, c. 95, clerks,
marshals, and district attorneys are required to render their
accounts, duly sworn to, for approval. We agree with counsel for
the government that the making of the oath and attaching the same
to the account is a part of the formality of presenting
Page 193 U. S. 530
such accounts, without which they are not properly rendered.
This item therefore should not have been allowed against the United
States in favor of the clerk.
United States v. Van Duzee,
140 U. S. 169;
United States v. Jones, 147 U. S. 672;
United States v. Allred, 155 U. S. 591.
The judgment of the Court of Claims will be modified by the
omission of this item, and, as so modified, affirmed.
In No. 198, the government objects to the allowance of certain
charges for transcript of record on writ of error in criminal
proceedings, by order of court, on behalf of an indigent defendant;
for services in connection with affidavits of poverty, and for
issuing subpoenas for grand and petit jurors. As to the transcript,
the contention is that section 878 of the Revised Statutes,
providing for payment under order of court of fees and costs when
defendant under indictment is without means, is exclusive, and does
not cover the charge for this service. Here, again, we think the
question has been settled, in effect, by what was said in
United States v. Barber, 140 U. S. 164;
United States v. Van Duzee, supra, and
United States
v. Allred, supra. It was held that an order of the court
requiring a service to be performed was sufficient authority as
between the clerk and the government for the performance of the
service and the allowance of the proper fee therefor.
Section 878 was originally enacted in 1846, and should not be
held to operate as a prohibition to the extent contended. The
indigent defendant ought not to be deprived of availing himself of
his writ of error because of his poverty, and, when the court has
ordered the transcript in the interest of justice, the clerk ought
not to be deprived of compensation.
The same considerations dispose of the objection to the second
item as to affidavits of defendants in criminal cases of inability
to pay costs. And we agree with the Court of Claims in sustaining
the charges for issuing subpoenas for grand and petit jurors by
order of court, the charge for seals being rejected. The subject is
well treated in
Martin v. United States, 26 Ct.Cl. 160.
The judgment will be affirmed.
Page 193 U. S. 531
In No.199, counsel for United States assign error in the
allowance of charges (1) for administering oaths, by order of
court, to witnesses for defendants on trial in criminal cases, (2)
for administering oaths to affidavits of poverty, and affixing
jurats, (3) for filing and entering applications for process, (4)
for filing and entering motions of indigent defendants for new
trial, (5) and for services rendered an indigent defendant, by
order of court, in prosecution of a writ of error in a capital
case. We assume that all these items relate to indigent defendants,
and considering sections 828 and 878 of the Revised Statutes, the
Act of February 6, 1889, 25 Stat. 655, c. 113, our previous
decisions, and what has just been said, we perceive no reason for
declining to accept the conclusions of the Court of Claims.
No. 525 is a cross-appeal from the judgment brought up in No.
199. We hold that the cross-appeal lies in the circumstances, but
agree with the disallowance by the Court of Claims of the items
involved. Two of these items consisted of charges for certificates
to copies of
sci. fa., and to copies of orders of court
for furnishing meals to jurors. No direction of court as to such
certificates was shown. The other item was for administering oaths
on the
voir dire of grand and petit jurors, and we do not
think can be justified under the fourth clause of § 828. The
judgment will be affirmed.
Judgments will be entered as above indicated.