The olause of seotion 2081 limiting the time of actual service'for whioh a supervisor may receive compensation to 10 days does not apply to the ohief suvervisor, who is entitled to compensation for all the time spent in attendance on the circuit court when sitting for the purpose of preserving order at the elections in the circuit, as provided by section 2011. As he is appointed chief supervisor because he is a United States commissioner, and the latter receives the fees of a clerk for services similar to those rendered by a clerk, the fee of a clerk for attendance at court -five dollars per day, and mileage at the rate of five cents per mile traveled-should be allowed the chief supervisor for his attendance. He l6hould be .allowed for the stationery used in his ofllce, the printed blanks, books, etc., anp copies of orders of oourt avpointing supervisors, etc., but this does not inClude blank applications for the appomtment of supervisors.
The fees of·15 cents per folio for recording- and indexing documents, and of 10 cents for filing and caring lor papers required to be filed, apPlY to papers furnished the cpurt containing informatiOn respecting supervisors, to information furnished to him by the supervisors themselves. .
At Law· .Plaintiff, SamuelT. Poinier, a commissioner of the circuit court of 'the United States for South Carolina, was appointed chief supervisor. He resided at. Spartanburg, S. C., lind there kept' his office. At the opening of the circuit court, according to law, on October 5, 1888, he left SpartanBi:U'g; and went to Gharleston, where the court was in session, and attended it de die in diem,' discharging his duties as chief supervisor. When the election was over, and the votes were counted, he prepared and' sUbmitted his accounts,· which were examined and approved by the district attorney and the judge. When they reached the department of the treasury in Washington, certain items were disallowed by the first c?lnptroller of the treasury. Thereupon the plaintiff brought 'suit in this court against the United States. In his petition he'sets out 'all necessary. fllcts, and produces his entire account, including the items· disallowed. The United States file an answer insisting on the disallowances. At the hearing all the items of the accounts disallowed were proved. The questions submitted were questions of law, under a construction of sections of the Revised Statutes· . ' John Wingatej"for plaintiff. Abiel Lathrop,· U. S. Atty., and H. A. De Sa'lJ,8sure, Asst. U. S. Dist. Atty. SIMOl"TON, J. The officer known as "chief supervisor of elections" is a commissioner detailed as such on special duty involving new responsibilities and duties. These, however, do not exclude services as commissioner; on the contrary, they include them, and are superinduced on his duties as commissioner. Rev. St. U. S. §§ 2025, 2031. He is required, as chief supervisor, to prepare certain blanks and other papers, and to perform some other specified duties. Section 2026. His conl;pEltlsation in the discharge of these duties is fixed by section 2031, but this compensation is apart from, and is in addition to,the fees allowed ,by law for any duty.performed,b,Y him as commissioner. Id. §§ 847, 2031;. Inre Conrad, 15 Fed. Rep.61ll; Gayer v. U. S., 33 Fed. Rep. 625. When he performs his specified duties of chief supervisor he gets a com>pensatioIi 'provided ill the act for these specified duties. If in the
POINIER II. UNITED STATES.
discharge of the duties of chief supervisor he performs services analogous to or the same as those of commissioner, for which no specified compensation is provided in the title 26, he must lookior his compensation to the statute relating to the fees of the commissio,ner. It is always to be presumed that when special duties are imposed on an officer of the government, when such officer is wholly dependent on the fees of his office, and has no fixed salary, gratuitous service is not to be implied. See Gratiot v. U. S., 15 Pet. 336. Let us examine the charges that have been disallowed. First. Recording and indexing the appointments of 1,008 supervisors. It is manifest, in order to discharge his duties in connection with supervisors; instructing them from time to tilllC, obtaining information from and of them, that the chief supervisor must have in his office a list of supervisors who have been appointed, and the evidence of their appointments. Besides this,eachsupervisormust,be put in possession of Bome certificate of his appointment, and such certificate should berecorded by the chief supervisor, ano, when filed, they should be indexed. Each of these papers forms two folios. Under section 2031 he gets for .entering and indexing every record of his office 15 cents per folio, which is charged here, and is allowed. Seccmd. Drawing .instrl;1ctions to supervisors,. 16 folios, at 15 cents, $2.40; copies for 1,008 supervisors, each 16 folios, at 10 cents. The duty of instructing supervisors, responsible and important as it is, is devolved on the chief supervisor. It is not simply a clerical act of the .character of those mentioned in section 2031, but one more analogous in. its character. For to his duties as commissioner, and more like duties as commissioner he is allowed 15 cents per folio for preparing papers, and 10 cents per folio for each copy of the paper so prehim have this allowance. Third. Administering oaths to supervisors, 26, at 10 cents each. In the case of Gayer v. U·. S. I allowed a charge like this. Upon re.examination I cannot find any provision of law which puts upon the ,government the cost for swearing supervisors. The supervisors necessa!l'ily take, an oath, but, as they are. not compelled to serve, their act is voluntary. The first, comptroller of'the treasury has good reason for not, allowi!1gthis charge. The expense of taking the oath must be paid by tl:\e supervisors thema:elves. This item is disallowed. Fourth. Per diem for attends nee on court. The oircuit court was open hy order of the circuit judge, under section 2011, on 5th day of October. Section 2026 required the chief supervisor to attend upon the .opening of court. He did attend, and day by day discharged his duties as required by law. The provision limiting the pay of supervisors .cannot apply to him. His duties are entirely distinct from, and in no He way resemhle, the duties of supervisors. He is not a -directs and controls supervisors. Here, then, we have a commissioner .of this court appointed chief supervisor, and eligible to his office only 'becauseh,4il.isacqmmissioner called upon to perform llertain duties. The first of these was to attend in person the pf the circuit court