and punish, or hold to bail theofl'ender." By section 1634, "when the ofl'ense charged is a felony, and the justice upon the hearing is of the opinion that the accused should be held to answer such charge, he shall be recognized/, etc. The provisions of section 1639 have already been quoted. By section 1642, "whenever any justice shall hold any prisoner to bail or commit him to jail in default of bail, he shall also recognize, with or without surety, such witnesses as he may deem important, to appear and testify before the court." Whether or not a witness is important can ordinarily be best determined by hearing his testimony, and if it is to be determined whether the witness shall be committed, in default of recognizance with the required surety, it may be necessary to examine other witnesses, whose testimony might make his unnecessary, or so unimportant as to render recognizance with surety unnecessary; and without a hearing it would be impossible to comply with the provisions of section 1639. But, aside from the literal terms of the statutes, there are considerations of public policy upon which, in the absence of express provision to the contrary, it must be held to be in the discretion of the examining officer to suspend the examination or not, upon a waiver byihe accused, as he shall deem best for the public interest. If an arrest be made without good ground, an examination will show the fact, an'd save the expense of an inquiry by the grand jury. The arrested party, sometimes when not guilty, in order to divert suspicion from others, but more frequently when guilty, and in order to aid the escape of confederates in the crime, is quite willing by waiving examination to suppress present inquiry; and oftener still, perhaps, this is done by the accused in the hope of suppressing the evidence against himself, or of gaining some like advantage from delay. An immediate development of the evidence and testimony is sometimes essential to the ends of justice, and it would be strange indeed if the laws are so framed, or the courts disposed so to interpret them as to deny the government this important power. Its exercise, unless wantonly abused, as' almost any power may be abused, can harm no one. Ordinarily, I doubt not, an offer of the accused to waive an examination should be accepted; but if the commis.sioner be convinced that the public interest will be better subserved by an investigation, and especially irthe district attorney request it, he may and should proceed to a full hearing. The demurrers to the fourth and fifth paragraphs of answer are therefore sustained.
DIMMICK ". UNITED STATES.
(Dutrict Oourt, 1Jf. D. Alabama. November 28, 1887.)
CLERK OF COURT-UNITED STATES COURTS-SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS-FEES.
The clerk of the United States district and circuit courts, and chief supervisor of elections, should file and indorse each paper that comes into his possession ofllciall.r. although pertailning to the same case or matter, and not simply the outsIde paper or wrapper, and he is entitled to fees for each paper filed. He is also entitled as supervisortofees for indexing and entering records of elections as required by law.
At Law. On demurrer to petition for fees as court commissioner and chief supervisor of elections, and upon the merits. Geo. H. Patrick, for plaintiff. Goo. F.1rIoore, Asst. U. S. Atty., for the United States.
BRUCE, J. This is a suit brought under the recent act of congress approved March 3, 1887. The plaintiff is clerk of the district and circuit conrts of the United States,and chief supervisor of elections for the Middle district of Alabama, and sues for amounts due to him for services rendered by him for and on behalf of the United States. He charges that the amount sued for was included in accounts which, as such clerk and chief supervisor, respectively, he made against the United States, and which were verified by oath and duly presented to the district court of the United States for this district, for approval; and that such accounts were duly approved by the court, and transmitted ,to the proper accounting officer at WashiI1gton, except one account not forwarded; and that the first comptroller of the treasury department disallowed a portion of his accounts so transmitted, as per his statements ofdifferences which were subin the evidence in the case, and the same reasons apply to the accouqt not. forwarded. To the petition the district attorney of the United States interposes a demurrer, and says that said accounts have been adjusted by the first comptro1l,er of the treasury department; and that the that induced the comptroller to disallow said items are sufficient iidaw,J.o'sustairi his' action. The questions oflaVl' presented by the demurrer have been substantially decided in the case of Barber v. U. S., 35 Fed. Rep. 886, at the present term, and that decision is followed berein. The prinCipal items in this suit objected to by the comptroller are the filing of papers from United States marsbals, and from commissioners, and indexing, filing, and entering records of chief supervisor of elections. It would be an unsafe precedent to follow the suggestion of the comptroller that only the outside paper or wrapper should be filed, the entire package. or. file being made up of separate papers, although appertaining to the same case or matter, or that but one of such package of papers should be filed. ,Penalties are prescribed against abstracting or altering papers filed in any federal court. It would not do for the fact of such filing to depend upon the uncertain memories of the clerk or his deputies, nor for the,clerk to abitrarily consider some papers in a pac)mge filed and others not'filed,Md to:\teep'no written record even of this. The embarrassnients c0nseqlient upon such practice are apparent., The clerk's indorsement prima facie proves the filing, and such indorsement is the usual manner ofevideneing the filing, and is the proper one. It should be upon every paper filed in his office. For all papers filed by him, the clerk is entitled to the' oomipensation provided by law. It was manifestly the duty of the to file all of the papers referred to in this suit and proved upon the trial. : It was equally his duty to mark these papers filed in the usual manneI'. 'As he has actually done the filing charged for,his fees for are allowed., The same may be said of the services performedb,x