Surveyors of ports performing the duties of collectors of the
customs in ports other than those ports enumerated in the fifth
section of the Act of May 7, 1822, 3 Stat. at Large 693, that is to
say of ports other than Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore,
Charleston, Savannah, and New Orleans, are entitled to a salary of
but $5,000 a year, even though the ports in which such surveyors
may be performing the duties of collectors had no existence on May
7th, 1822, and, like the port of St. Louis, were not created till
1831. The system of classes, established for salary purposes by the
above-mentioned act of 1822, extends to surveyors doing collectors'
duty in ports subsequently created.
Donovan was surveyor of the port of St. Louis, "performing the
duties of collector," from January, 1860, to May, 1861. In the
settlement of his accounts with the government, he retained $6,000
per year as his official compensation, claiming that sum as his
legal allowance. The Treasury Department was willing to allow him
$5,000, but no more. And to get the $1,000 in dispute, the United
States sued him on his official bond.
The question was are surveyors of ports, "performing the duties
of collectors," under the Act of 1831, entitled to the compensation
of $6,000 per year? The issue presented turned upon the right
construction of certain statutes.
In the early history of the custom house laws, the collectors,
naval officers, and surveyors received their compensation
Page 90 U. S. 384
from fees earned by them, which were provided for by the various
statutes on the subject. As the business of the country increased
the aggregate of these fees came to be so large that Congress saw
fit to limit the compensation of these various officers as derived
from those fees. The first of these limitations, now in force, was
that of the Act of May 7, 1822. This law was a limitation upon
existing rights. Without it, the officers named would, of course,
have received compensation much larger than the sums named.
The statutes bearing on the case were thus:
By an Act of May 7, 1822, it was thus enacted: [
Footnote 1]
"SECTION 9. Whenever the
emoluments of any collector of
customs of either of the ports of Boston, New York, Philadelphia,
Baltimore, Charleston, Savannah, or New Orleans shall exceed
$4,000, or the
emoluments of any naval officer of either
of said ports shall exceed $3,000, or the
emoluments of
any surveyor of either of said ports shall exceed $2,500 in any one
year, after deducting the necessary expenses incident to his office
in the same year, the excess shall in every such case be paid into
the Treasury for the use of the United States."
"SECTION 10. Whenever the
emoluments of any other
collectors of the customs shall exceed $3,000, or the
emoluments of any other naval officer shall exceed $2,500,
or the
emoluments of any other surveyor shall exceed
$2,000 in any one year, after deducting therefrom the necessary
expenses incident to his office in the same year, the excess shall
in every such case be paid into the Treasury for the use of the
United States."
"SECTION 11. The preceding provisions shall not extend to fines,
penalties, or forfeitures or to the distribution thereof."
At the time of this enactment, St. Louis, of which Donovan was
the surveyor &c., was not "a port."
By an Act of March 2, 1831,
"allowing the duties on foreign merchandise imported into
Pittsburg, Wheeling, Cincinnati, Louisville, St. Louis, Nashville,
and Natchez to be secured and paid at those places,"
and making St. Louis a port, a change is in some respects made
in former laws.
Page 90 U. S. 385
This act makes St. Louis and other places ports, which they were
not before. By this law, as will be seen by reference to it, when
any merchant in St. Louis imports goods, he deposits with the
surveyor a schedule of such goods, with an estimate of their cost.
Upon this the surveyor makes an estimate of the amount of duties
accruing, and the importer gives bond, approved by the surveyor, to
pay these duties. The surveyor then sends to the collector at New
Orleans a copy of this bond and schedule.
The importer then enters the goods at New Orleans, and the
collector then certifies to the surveyor at St. Louis the amount of
duties, and delivers the goods to the importer to be shipped to St.
Louis. Upon reaching their destination, the surveyor having
informed himself of the correctness of the entire proceeding, gives
a permit for the landing of the goods.
These duties are, to some extent, in the nature of those
performed in other ports by a collector.
The act enacts: [
Footnote
2]
"SECTION 5. That where surveyors are not already appointed in
any of the places mentioned, a suitable person shall be appointed
for such places, and on all such surveyors, whether appointed or to
be appointed, shall devolve the duties
prescribed by this act,
in addition to the customary duties performed by that officer in
other places, and the surveyor at each of said places shall .
. . receive,
in addition to his customary fees, an annual
salary of $350."
This act first anywhere made surveyors perform the duties in any
respect like those of collectors.
Next came an Act of March 3, 1841, thus: [
Footnote 3]
"SECTION 5. In addition to the account now required to be
rendered by every collector of customs, naval officer, and surveyor
of ports, every such collector, naval officer, and surveyor shall,
each and every year hereafter, render a quarter yearly account
under oath to the Secretary of the Treasury of all sums of money by
each of them respectively received or collected for
Page 90 U. S. 386
fines, penalties, or forfeitures . . . or for rent and storage
of goods, wares, or merchandise, which may be stored in the public
storehouses, and for which rent is paid beyond the rents paid by
the collector or other such officer; and if from such accounting it
shall appear that the money received in any one year by any
collector, naval officer, or surveyor on account and for rents and
storage aforesaid and for fees and emoluments, shall in the
aggregate exceed the sum of $2,000, such excess shall be paid by
the said collector, naval officer, or surveyor, as the case may be,
into the Treasury of the United States, and no such collector shall
on any pretense whatever hereafter receive, hold, or retain for
himself in the aggregate more than $6,000 per year, including all
commissions for duties and all fees for storage, or fees or
emoluments, or any other commissions or salaries which are now
allowed and limited by law. Nor shall such naval officer on any
pretense whatever in the aggregate receive, hold, or retain for
himself hereafter more than $5,000 per year, including all
commissions on duties, and all fees for storage or fees or
emoluments or any other commissions or salaries which are now
allowed and limited by law. Nor shall such surveyor in the
aggregate receive, hold, or retain for himself hereafter more than
$4,500 per year, including all commissions, or fees, or emoluments,
or any other commissions or salaries which are now allowed and
limited by law."
Then followed an Act of March 3, 1857, thus: [
Footnote 4]
"SECTION 8. The provisions of the Act approved the 3d day of
March, 1841, which established and limited the compensation of
collectors of customs, shall be construed to apply to
surveyors
performing or having performed the duties of collectors of the
customs, who shall be entitled to the same compensation as i
allowed to collectors for like services in the settlement of their
accounts."
It was admitted as part of the case that after the passage of
it, all surveyors doing duty as collectors at the port of St. Louis
have claimed $6,000 as the maximum of their compensation from all
sources under the law.
Finally came an Act of June 8, 1872, in terms nearly identical
with the one just quoted: [
Footnote
5]
Page 90 U. S. 387
"The provisions of the fifth section of the Act approved March
3, 1841, which established and limited the compensation of
collectors of customs,
shall be amended and shall be
construed to apply to
all surveyors of customs ports
performing or
having performed the duties of collectors of
customs, who shall be entitled to receive the same compensation as
is allowed to collectors by said act of March 3d, 1841, for like
services in the settlement of their accounts with the Treasury,
provided that the fees, commissions, and emoluments
prescribed by law and collected by them shall amount to such
maximum allowance."
Over all came the Revised Statutes of the United States, whose
purpose was not to make any new law, but to embody existing
statutes. These enact:
"SECTION 2688. No collector or
surveyor performing the
duties of collector shall on any pretense whatsoever receive,
hold, or retain for himself in the aggregate more than $6,000 per
annum."
The question on the whole case -- fact and statutes -- thus was
whether surveyors now, A.D. 1860-61, doing collectors' duty, were
to be paid with reference to the
classes into which,
for the purposes of salary, collectors, surveyors, and
naval officers seemed to be divided
by the early act of
1822, to-wit:
1st. The class doing duty at Boston, New York, Philadelphia,
Baltimore, Charleston, Savannah, and New Orleans, who received the
higher salaries.
2d. All others who received a lower one.
The government asserted that the system of classes
established by this act extended to surveyors doing
collectors' duty, though such a class of surveyors did not then
exist, but was first constituted by the Act of 1831.
Donovan, the surveyor at St. Louis doing collectors' duty,
denied this, asserting that all surveyors doing collectors' duty
were entitled to the pay of the highest class of collectors -- in
other words, though he admitted that if he had been collector at
St. Louis, he could have had but $5,000, he asserted that as
surveyor, doing in addition a collector's duty, he was entitled,
under the acts of 1857 and 1872, to $6,000.
Page 90 U. S. 388
The ground of his position was that the Act of 1822 applied to
the two classes of ports existing at
that date -- that is
to say, to ports which had both collectors
and surveyors,
each performing their respective duties, though in some ports
enumerated, the duties of both were greater than in other ports not
enumerated; that by the law of 1831, a third class of ports was
created -- that is to say, ports where the surveyor performed all
the duties which in the two former classes the surveyor performed,
and performed, in addition, the duties which in those ports were
performed by the collector; ports, in other words, where double
duty or more than double duty was performed by the surveyor; that
this double duty entitled the party to an augmented compensation,
and that this compensation was
meant to be given by the
act of 1857, and had always been claimed under it by surveyors
doing collectors' duty; that the Treasury making some difficulty,
the act of 1872 had been passed making the right more clear, and
that finally the Revised Statutes had put a legislative
interpretation on the matter which removed all doubt, if doubt
existed.
The circuit court (Dillon, J.) thus said:
"The provision of the Act of June 8th, 1872 -- under which
compensation is claimed by Donovan upon the basis of $6,000 per
year instead of $5,000 -- is that the compensation of such an
officer shall be the same as that given to collectors by the fifth
section of the Act of March 3, 1841, not to exceed, however, the
maximum amount therein allowed. In 1859, in the case of
United
States v. Walker, [
Footnote
6] the Supreme Court of the United States construed the
above-mentioned act of 1841 in connection with the previous acts
in pari materia and decided that as respects compensation,
there were two classes of collectors,
viz., 1st.,
collectors of the seven ports enumerated in the ninth section of
the Act of May 7, 1822, whose total compensation from all sources,
might equal but could not exceed $6,000 in a year; and 2d, all
other collectors,
i.e., collectors of the nonenumerated
ports, whose aggregate compensation could not exceed the sum of
$5,000 in any one year. I am unable to discover
Page 90 U. S. 389
in the Act of 1872 satisfactory evidence that it was thereby
intended to abrogate in favor of surveyors performing the duties of
collectors this established distinction between what is termed the
enumerated and unenumerated ports."
"The act of 1841, as authoritatively construed, limited the
aggregate compensation of a collector of one of the enumerated
ports at $6,000 and of a collector of any other port at $5,000, but
while it did provide for the compensation of surveyor, it did not
provide a specific compensation for a surveyor who, under the Act
of 1831, performed the duties of a collector of customs."
"This was sought to be remedied by the Act of March 3, 1857, but
as its phraseology was not clear, and as complaints were made that
it was illiberally restricted by the accounting officers of the
Treasury Department to the surveyors of the principal ports, under
the ninth section of the Act of 1822, [
Footnote 7] the Act of 1872, upon which the plaintiffs in
error rely, was passed."
"This last-named act places 'all surveyors of customs ports
performing the duties of collectors' upon the footing, as respects
compensation, of collectors under the Act of March 3, 1841, for
like services."
"St. Louis being a nonenumerated port, the maximum allowance to
a collector can in no event exceed $5,000, and this sum is in my
judgment the limit of compensation to which the surveyor of the
port of St. Louis is entitled."
Judgment was accordingly given for the United States, and the
other side brought the case here.
Page 90 U. S. 397
MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.
Officers of the customs derive their compensation chiefly from
certain enumerated fees, commissions, and allowances, to which is
added, for the benefit of the collector of the port, a prescribed
sum, called salary, which is very much less than the compensation
to which the officer is entitled. Provision for such fees,
commissions, and allowances were first made by the Act of the
thirty-first of July, 1789, which also allowed to collectors
certain proportions of fines, penalties, and forfeitures. [
Footnote 8]
Changes have been made in the rates of fees, commissions, and
allowances for such purposes at different periods to graduate the
compensation of such officers to the nature and extent of the
services imposed, but the theory and outline of the system have
been preserved since the first acts were passed levying import and
tonnage duties. Examples of such changes are found in the Act of
the eighteenth of February,
Page 90 U. S. 398
1793, for enrolling and licensing ships and vessels, and in the
Act of second of March, 1799, to regulate the collection of duties
on imports and tonnage, and in the act usually called the
Compensation Act, passed on the same day. [
Footnote 9]
Regulations of a permanent character were made by those several
acts that certain fees and commissions should be paid to the
collectors of the customs, together with a certain proportion of
the sums paid to them for fines, penalties, and forfeitures
collected from persons found guilty of violating the penal
prohibitions of the revenue laws. Such fees, commissions, and
allowances it was provided should be paid to the respective
collectors, and the requirement was that they should keep an
accurate account of the same and of all expenses for rent, fuel,
stationery, and clerk hire, and that they should annually transmit
such accounts to the Comptroller of the Treasury, but they were
allowed by those laws to retain the whole amount of the emoluments
derived from those sources beyond the expenses of the office
without any limitation whatever. Expenses for rent, fuel,
stationery, and clerk hire were to be deducted from the gross
receipts, but they were allowed to retain the whole of the net
balance as official emoluments for their services.
Business revived and importations increased, and with such
increase the compensation of the collectors at certain ports became
excessive, which called for new legislation, and by the Act of
thirtieth of April, 1802, Congress prescribed a maximum rate of
compensation without making any reduction of the fees or
commissions required to be paid to the collectors, but the
provisions of the act did not extend to fines, penalties, and
forfeitures. [
Footnote
10]
By that act it was provided that whenever the annual emoluments
of any collector, after deducting the expenses incident to the
office, amount to more than five thousand dollars, the surplus
shall be accounted for and paid into the Treasury.
Page 90 U. S. 399
Twenty years' experience under that act showed that it needed
revision, as it applied without any discrimination whatever as well
to the large ports where the principal importations were made as to
those of comparatively little importance. Collection districts were
accordingly divided by the Act of the seventh May, 1822, into two
classes, usually denominated the enumerated and the nonenumerated
ports. [
Footnote 11]
Under the provisions of that act, the emoluments of collectors
of the enumerated ports might reach the sum of four thousand
dollars, but the ninth section of the act provided that whenever
the emoluments of the office shall exceed that sum in any one year,
the collector, after deducting the necessary expenses incident to
his office, shall pay the excess into the Treasury for the use of
the United States. But the maximum rate of compensation allowed to
collectors of the nonenumerated ports under the provisions of that
act, from all the sources of emolument therein recognized and
prescribed, is three thousand dollars, and the tenth section of the
act contains a provision similar to that found in the ninth
section, requiring the collector of the nonenumerated ports to
account for, and pay the excess, beyond the amount allowed as the
maximum rate of compensation, into the public Treasury. [
Footnote 12]
Collectors under those provisions may receive the maximum rate
of their offices if the office, after deducting the necessary
expenses incident to the same, produces that amount from all the
sources of emolument recognized and prescribed by the laws in
operation. No one can receive more than the maximum rate, and his
lawful claim may be much less, according to the amount of business
transacted in the office. [
Footnote 13]
From that time until the passage of the Act of the third of
March, 1841, the laws providing for compensation of collectors
remained without material change. Every such
Page 90 U. S. 400
officer is required by the fifth section of that act to include
in his quarter-yearly account, among other things, all sums
received by him for rent and storage of goods, wares, and
merchandise stored in the public storehouses for which a rent is
collected beyond what is paid for the same by such officer. Moneys
received from that source, it is contended, may be retained by a
collector of a nonenumerated port sufficient to make his annual
compensation six thousand dollars, the claim being that the maximum
limit prescribed to the nonenumerated ports is repealed by the
subsequent legislation, but this Court held otherwise and decided
that the collector under that act could in no case retain more than
two thousand dollars, and that he was bound to pay the excess
beyond that amount into the Treasury as part and parcel of the
public money. [
Footnote
14]
Consequently the conclusion was that the compensation of a
collector of one of the
enumerated ports may be six
thousand dollars, but the compensation allowed to the collector of
one of the nonenumerated ports cannot exceed five thousand dollars,
according to the amount of fees and commissions collected and the
amount received from rent and storage. Officers of the kind may
receive the maximum rate of their office allowed by the prior law
from the sources of emolument recognized and prescribed by that
act, provided the office, after deducting the necessary expenses
incident to the same, yields that amount from those sources, and in
addition thereto he is entitled to whatever sum or sums he may
receive from rent and storage, provided the amount does not exceed
two thousand dollars, but the excess beyond that sum and the
excess, if any, beyond the maximum rate of his office as fixed
under the prior law, he is required to pay into the Treasury as
part and parcel of the public money. [
Footnote 15]
Attempt was subsequently made by the United States to limit the
operations of the Storage Act, as a source of compensation to
collectors, to such storage only as is received
Page 90 U. S. 401
for stores
leased by the Treasury Department, for which
rents are paid by the importers of goods beyond the rent paid on
behalf of the United States, but the court refused to adopt that
narrow construction, and held that all sums received for storage,
whether the goods imported were deposited in the public stores or
the "other stores" named in the acts of Congress, are required to
be included in the quarter-yearly account of the collector, which
he is directed to render to the Secretary of the Treasury, and that
the yearly aggregate of such sums constitute the basis of
computation in ascertaining what amount, if anything, the collector
is entitled to receive as compensation from that source of
emolument, and what amount, if anything, he is required to pay over
from that source, as excess beyond the two thousand dollars, into
the public Treasury. [
Footnote
16]
None of these propositions is controverted by the defendant, nor
does he contend that any of those provisions have been superseded
by any express repeal, but he insists that surveyors performing the
duties of collectors, under the fifth section of the Act of the
second of March, 1831, are entitled to the same compensation as the
collectors of the enumerated ports.
Merchandise imported from a foreign port and consigned to
merchants at St. Louis was required, if the importation was subject
to custom duties, to be entered at the custom house in New Orleans
in the same manner as required in case of the entry of goods
imported for consumption, and the officers of the customs at that
port are required to proceed to assess the custom duties in the
same way as if the merchandise had been destined for sale or
consumption in that market.
Payment of the duties, however, is not required to be made at
that port, but the importer is required to give a bond, called a
transportation bond, conditioned that the packages described in the
invoice shall, within a specified
Page 90 U. S. 402
time, be delivered to the surveyor and acting collector of the
port of St. Louis. Due notice of the proceedings is then given by
the collector of the port where the duties were ascertained and
assessed to the acting collector of the port to which the
merchandise is destined. Such proceedings being had, the vessel may
proceed on her voyage, and when she arrives at the port of
destination, the packages are placed in the custody of the acting
collector of that port, who receives the duties, giving notice of
that fact to the collector of the port where they were ascertained
and assessed, and the collector of the latter port is authorized to
cancel the transportation bond given by the importer. [
Footnote 17]
Compensation was claimed by the defendant at the rate of six
thousand dollars per annum, and it is admitted that he retained
that amount of the moneys collected by him in pursuance of that
claim, two thousand dollars of which accrued from rent and storage
and the other four thousand dollars accrued from fees, commissions,
and allowances recognized and prescribed by the prior Compensation
Act. [
Footnote 18]
Four thousand dollars may be received as compensation under that
act by the collector of each of the seven ports named in the ninth
section of that act, and the provisions of a more recent act give
the same compensation to the collector of the port of Portland,
Maine, but the tenth section of the said Compensation Act provides
that whenever the emoluments of any other collector of the customs
shall exceed three thousand dollars, after deducting therefrom the
necessary expenses incident to his office, in the same year, the
excess shall in every such case be paid into the Treasury for the
use of the United States. [
Footnote 19]
St. Louis is not one of the enumerated ports, but the defendant
insists that the Act of the second of March, 1831, which devolved
upon the surveyor of that port the duties of collector, designated
a third class of ports, and that the
Page 90 U. S. 403
maximum compensation of such a collector is six thousand
dollars. Nothing is contained in the act to support any such theory
or to afford the slightest evidence that Congress intended anything
of the kind. Instead of that, the act provides that the surveyor
charged with such duties shall receive, in addition to his
customary fees, an annual salary of three hundred and fifty
dollars, which is utterly inconsistent with the theory that he is
entitled by virtue of that act to the same compensation as the
collector of one of the enumerated ports.
Confirmation of that view is also derived from the further
provision of the same section that no salary arising under the act
shall commence until the act shall take effect and merchandise
shall be imported under its authority. Prior to that time, the
customary fees of the surveyor of that port accruing under the
Compensation Act of the seventh of May, 1822, could not exceed two
thousand dollars, and it is not pretended that he could retain to
his own use more than two thousand dollars from rent and
storage.
Apply those suggestions to the case before the Court and it is
clear that the compensation of the defendant, if regarded merely as
a surveyor, could not exceed four thousand three hundred and fifty
dollars, even if it be admitted that the sum called salary is an
addition to the four thousand dollars to be derived from the other
sources of emolument and not merely an addition to the basis of
calculation in computing the maximum to be derived from fees,
commissions, and allowances, as provided in the tenth section of
the Compensation Act.
Small sums called salary have always been allowed to collectors
and to the surveyors of certain ports, but such allowances have
uniformly been included in the basis of calculation as part of the
receipts from fees, commissions, and allowances in computing the
maximum compensation of the officers interested. Surveyors of
ports, where the officer is charged with the duties of collectors,
now stand upon a different footing, as the Act of the third of
March, 1857, provides that such surveyors shall be entitled to
the
Page 90 U. S. 404
same compensation as is allowed to collector for like services
in the settlement of their accounts. [
Footnote 20]
Grant that, and still it is contended by the defendant that the
maximum compensation of all collectors, except those of the
enumerated ports, as provided in the tenth section of the
Compensation Act, is repealed by the act requiring collectors to
include all sums received for rent and storage in their
quarter-yearly accounts. Much discussion of that topic, however, is
unnecessary, as the question has been twice determined adversely to
the defendant by the unanimous decisions of this Court. [
Footnote 21]
Such a collector cannot receive under any circumstances more
than five thousand dollars, not even if the office earns a greater
amount, and he may be obliged to accept much less in case the
office does not earn three thousand dollars net from fees,
commissions, and allowances or in case the amount received from
rent and storage falls short of two thousand dollars.
Effort is also made in argument to derive support to the
proposition that the limitation contained in the tenth section of
the Compensation Act is repealed, from the act which provides that
the compensation of such a surveyor shall be the same as is allowed
to collectors for like services, but it will be sufficient to say
in response to that suggestion that the court is of the opinion
that the proposition is destitute of any foundation whatever.
Suppose that is so, still it is insisted by the defendant that
the Act of the eighth of June, 1872, entitles him, as the
administrator of the intestate, to retain to the use of the estate
of the decedent a rate of compensation equal to six thousand
dollars per annum, but the Court is entirely of a different
opinion. [
Footnote 22]
Stripped of certain redundant words, the body of the act is
exactly the same as section eighth in the prior act. [
Footnote 23] Both
Page 90 U. S. 405
acts provide that such a surveyor "shall be entitled to the same
compensation as is allowed to collectors for like services," and
neither contains a word which is repugnant to the tenth section of
the Compensation Act. [
Footnote
24]
Nor is the proviso in the latter act inconsistent with the prior
limitation, as the maximum allowance to such a collector is three
thousand dollars from fees and commissions and two thousand dollars
from rent and storage.
Judgment affirmed.
[
Footnote 1]
3 Stat. at Large 693.
[
Footnote 2]
4 Stat. at Large 480.
[
Footnote 3]
5
id. 421
[
Footnote 4]
11 Stat. at Large 221.
[
Footnote 5]
17
id. 336.
[
Footnote 6]
63 U. S. 22 How.
299.
[
Footnote 7]
Congressional Globe, 2d session, 43rd Congress, part 4, p.
3409.
[
Footnote 8]
1 Stat. at Large 64.
[
Footnote 9]
1 Stat. at Large 171, 316, 695, 706.
[
Footnote 10]
2
id. 172.
[
Footnote 11]
3 Stat. at Large 693.
[
Footnote 12]
Hoyt v. United
States, 10 How. 135.
[
Footnote 13]
United States v. Macdonald, 2 Clifford 281.
[
Footnote 14]
United States v.
Walker, 22 How. 313.
[
Footnote 15]
Ib.
[
Footnote 16]
United States v.
Macdonald, 5 Wall. 656;
Same Case, 2
Clifford 283;
Clark v. Peasely, Circuit Court,
Massachusetts District, October Term, 1862.
[
Footnote 17]
4 Stat. at Large 482; Belcher v. Linn, 24 How. 516.
[
Footnote 18]
3 Stat. at Large 895.
[
Footnote 19]
3
id. 695; 13
id. 46.
[
Footnote 20]
11 Stat. at Large 221.
[
Footnote 21]
United States v.
Walker, 22 How. 314;
United
States v. Macdonald, 5 Wall. 655.
[
Footnote 22]
17 Stat. at Large 336.
[
Footnote 23]
11
id. 229.
[
Footnote 24]
3 Stat. at Large 695.
