, IN REWALLER;
ported decree of condemnation.· If this sweeping and arbitrary power is conceded to the officers of the department, they could as well have made the deficiency. twice or tb.ree as it is. .They have only to mak(;lll charge, no matter howunfoundeditmay be, and have it certified, and the postmaster and his bondsmen are without remedy. Of course the foregoing suggestion is made merely by way of illustration, without intending to intimate that such abuse of power has ever taken place; in the case at bar the officials unquestionably acted with entire good faith. It is thought, however, that it W8.15 not the intention of the law that executive officers· should be clothed with the power thus to usurp the ince of court and jury and decide, finally and irrevocably, questions of fact upon ex parte and hearsay statements. Such power is not found in the sections of the statute referred to. They were intended to, promote the convepience of the departments and the courts. If the original ofa paper, book or accountia evidence, a copy properlycertitied, is equally admissible. It was. not the intention of congress; to admit incompetent evidence un4er the guise ofacertiticate. following authorities are in.accord views: U. B. v.Jonea, 8 Pet. 375j U. B.v. Jj'o'fwythe; 6 McLellu;.li84;U. B. v. B,#/wd, 3 Pet.12j .Hoyt v. U. B., 10 How·.109j U. S. y.:$mitk,35 Fed. Rep. amv. U. S., 6. PetJ 172, 202jSmith v; u,. S.,:5. Pet. 292j U. S. v. Edwards, 1. McLean, 467; U. S.v. Patterson, Gilp. 47; v. Battie, Id.97j Brttt:ev. U. B., 17 How. 437,:440jU. S. v. &·1'.8, 1 How. 250. it is said that the provisioneo! the act of June 17,1878, which, authorize the postttlaster-general .towithholdllOmmissions on reare false, do not permit him to master with commissions on alleged false returns where the accounts have, in the due course of business, been settled and allowed. He may withhold commissions, but having allowed them, he cannot recover them without due process of law. There is great force in this position. U. B. v. Hutches01t, Fed. 540;.. [Jo.;.s. v. Johnston, 124U. S. 237, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 446. .... .. . ' It follows the verdict must be trial granted.
(Dldr,fl"t" Court, W.i:>;So';'th
. .A person. employed. bY 'a postmaster who reeeives a fixed sala.ry, without any sllowance for clerk hire, is not a "clerk or officer of the United States; " Within the meaning of Rev. St. U. s. S850, declaring that such persons shall receive only their nt:lcessar,y when summoned .... witll.esses in behalf of the
:,;., . . :. . . .
There 18 no such office as deputy-postmaster of the United States.
.LQWis Waller for; witnesS' fees. ..Allowed:
SIMONTON, Distri9t Judge. Lewis Waller, styling himself postmaster at Greenwood, S. C., is attending this court as a witness for a defendant. This defendant, being unable to pay his witnesses, tained an order under section 878, Rev. St., and his'witnesses, among themWaller,were summoned, and will be paid by the United States. Waller, being about to discharged, claims the usual mileage and per diem of witnesses. Were he an officer of the United States, and summoned: ort behalf of the government, he would be entitled only" to his necessaryeXipenses, stated in items, and sworn to. in going, returning, and atRev. St. § 850.' The same rule would be observed tendance op the when an 'officer of the- United States is summoned, and attends as awij;;. ness'forth-e defendant,a:t,the expense of the UniteflStates. Section 878, Rev. the- conditions! under which the court may order witness$Sito be summoned, in 'behalf<jf, an impecunious deflmdant, goes on: ,'nn'su6h case, t4e co.sts incurred, by the prooess and fees ofthe wij;;. nesses' shall be paid in the same manner that similar costs and fees are paid in caSe of witnesses sllbpamaedin:behalf of the United States." If he wou'ld '.be paid siIIlilat :costs and fees as he woul'll' have secured had he been 8\1 bpcenaed in behalf of the' United States.' he would get only his I But this man calls himself deputy-postmaster.' No actual suoh,oiftce is for in the 8.cts of congress·. It appears that the p0stmaster'llt .Greenwood gets a fixed ',salary , out of which he pays such clerks as he may appoint. He need notappoint any. Under cumstances; ,Walleroannot 'be called 'iln officer of the United States. U. S. v.Mouat, 124 U.S. 303, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 505. Let him have the mileage and Pf1l" diem of a witness, under section 848, Rev. :St.
1"" foe ROESSLER
&: HAssLAcium CHEMICAL Co. & Co., Limited.
(Oircuit Oourt, :$. D. New York. ,November 25, 189L)
CUSTOMS DUTIEB-CLASSIII'ICATION-PREPARATIONS 011' COAL-TAR.
Where the determining characteristic of a product is something which it has derived from coal-tar the same ill dutiable at 20 per cent. ad valorem as a "preparation of coaJ-tar," under the tarifl: act of March 8,1883, (Tarifl: Ind., New, par. 83,) instead of as a "chemical compound," under pllragraph 92, notwith!;ltanding that some of tlilf constituents 'of .'coaJ·tar have been eliminated and other materials added.
, , Under "naphthionate of soda" and toluidine base are dutiable as "prepantiol:!s of cOaJ·tar. " ,
Appeals froID Decision the Board of United States Reversed. The report of the district attorney to the secretary of the treasury in the Roessler Jei Hasskicher Chemical Oornpanrg case is as follows: .