Case ID: us-ct-cl_33/html/0512-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Brewer", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CHARLES A. GARTER v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [31 C. Cls. R., 344; 170 U. S. R., 527.]
    
      On the defendants’ Appeal.
    
    A district attorney seeks to recover for professional services rendered as special counsel at the request of the Attorney-General, who allows him $300 as counsel fees. The case in which he was employed originated in Alaska, and was carried up to the Circuit Court of Appeals sitting in San Francisco.
    The court below decides:
    1. The statutes require a district attorney to prosecute “in Ins district all civil actions 'in which the United States are concerned” (§ 771), and prohibit him from receiving extra compensation for any service whatever “unless the same is authorized bylaw and the appropriation, therefor explicitly states that it is for such additional pay” (§1765), and also from receiving any compensation “beyond his compensation or salary allowed by law,” unless employed by the Department of Justice in the performance of services not covered by salaries or fees. (Act 80th June, 1874,18 Stat. L,, p. 85, § 3.)
    2. Specific fees for specific services are prescribed by § 824; and for analogous services “where the United States is interested, but not a party of record,” § 299 authorizes assimilated fees.
    3. The salary of $200, given by § 770, is to cover incidental services not provided for by specific or analogous fees.
    4. If a district attorney by direction of the Attorney-General performs duties germane to his office, he must perform them without extra compensation; but if he is employed by the Attorney-General to render services not incidental to his official duties he may be compensated for them.
    5. It is not one of the official duties of a district attorney in California to appear and argue a case brought by appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals sitting in San Francisco from the District Court of Alaska. The fact that the court was sitting in the' attorney’s district did not impose upon him the duty of appearing in a case coming from another district.
    6. The Act Jd March, 1891 (26 Stat. L., p. 826), establishing circuit courts of appeals, contains no provision for the compensation of district attorneys in cases where the United States are parties, nor requires them to appear as counsel for the United States. ■
    
      7. The Attorney-General has authority under § 362 to direct district attorneys to follow cases on appeal from their own districts into the Circuit Court of Appeals, and he has authority to employ special counsel to assist district attorneys in the discharge of their duties; and he may employ as special counsel one who is district attorney within the district in which the Court of Appeals is sitting in a case coming from another district.
    8. When a lawyer is employed hy the Attorney-General, and his services are accepted and compensation therefor ñxed, it will he assumed that the requirements of the statutes authorizing his employment have been complied with.
    The decision of tbe court below is affirmed on the same grounds.
    May 9, 1898.
   Mr. Justice Brewer

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court