Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1840-1842, 1842-05-17
s2.433 OF


Amounting, in the whole to SASS o.
On what principle Of law or practice the District
Attorney is jusiihable in charging counsel fees TO
the defendants, especially IN cases which have not
been brought TO trial or dockeieL, remains TO be
explained, as no such practice has existed, at any
time, in the courts OF New York, State Federal.
Several professional gentlemen were examined in
this point and among them MIR Price, the former
District Attorney, none of whom had ever heard
OF such practice. There is certainly no law,
statute or common, on which to Justify IL.
The following extract from the deposition of
Jonathan Miller, a respectable counsellor IN the
courts OF New York, and who was OF counsel in
most OF the compromise cases, is given, TO show
what the practice Of the courts has been on this
subject. His opinion, given under oath, is IN &C
cordance with that Of the other counsel examined
by the Commissioners:
Question 10. "What is the fee allowed by law
TO District Attorney, in cases arising under a
breach Of the revenue lawsl Please state 10y what
authority OF law practice Benlamin Butler Dis
| trict Attorney of the United States, demanded of
District Attorney, in case not actually pending in
Court, the writ not having been served. And state
| also, what sums were demanded under tho compro.
! misses made with other merchants for whom you
acted rs counsel, and whether the payment OF such
lees as said District Attorney demanded was not
made n condition Of his assent &c the compromise
| proposed and agreed to by the Collector"
To which the following answer was given:
.7Hsicsr 10 Question 10. al must beg leave to re-
fer TO the law, the fee allowed IN cases arising
under the breach Of the revenue laws | do not
| Know OF any authority OF law or practice, by which
| the $500 was demanded OF John TAYLOR. IT,, as a
| Zee. IL was not demanded 10y MIR Butler. bu, by
| MIR ioyt for him, as before stated; nor did Mr. But
| Ter, to my knowledge, ever demand the payment Of
such fees, or any fees, as District Attorney as a
condition OF his assent to any compromise; but they
were conditions made by MIR Hoyt, and the sums
, named by him. which in my Judgement were ex.
| travlg antly high"
Whether it required "lccture" from Mr. Hoyt to
/ induce Mr. Butler 10 receive these fees, which he
had cNacied from the importing merchants without
the authority of aw. must be left to inference:
but is certain that he did receive them and passed
ofhcial receipts for the same. The enormty of the
bills OF cost rendered against the Government by
the Distre, Attorney, and other officers Of the court
may be seen by few examples, which arc selected
from the great mass Of others Of similar character
la 1888, ut the June term of the District
Court, the costs one motion for
judgement against Lee, Babcock &
Co., on % bonds, amounted to 81 sea 10
On the 18th OF the same month on one
motion for judgements against Gibson,
Post s Gibson, on A bonds 1892 IS
On the 2lst September of the same wear,
en- one motion for judgements against
Henry b. Hart, or bonds sly 59
On the 9th OF October, one motion, onS
bonds against Gibson, Post and Glib.
55Ic,
On the Sd Of March, 1910, one motion
n asams. 3 F Lee 4s * Co on 26 bonds 2,5l4 10
ton against the same house, on 4e
o. bonds 9E 81. 49,, , S,33s 20
against Francis Bacon. David n Lord,
and Edwin Lord, on 81 bonds 3lo7 81
On the same day. one motion against Lord
o. q =. PEARSON S7l on l6 bonds 1924 10
On the s,h OF May, of the same wear, ona
motion against Nelson J. Elliot and
Reuben Elliot, number OF bonds no,
Iv named '.aic, 1875 II
ton, II appears that on ii motions for
judgements, on 296 bonds the amount
VI Sos's charged TO the Government 23Os7 40
NOT one dollar OF which was collected from the de-
Iehunnts. Ia relation to portion Of these bonds.
correspondence took place between the Dis,r;ci
attorney and the Solicitor OF the Treasury. An
extract IS given below from the letter of Mr. Ru,ler
70 Mr. hoyi, which recognizes the instructions oC
she solicitor on the subject, and asks information
from the collector relative to the soyencv of The
oohgors IN these bonds. MIR Butler saws:
L. S. District attorneys Office.
NEw EoRK, March 10, ls4O.
~ or; nave received from the Solicitor Of the
treasury a communication on the subject Of tho
practice which, as you are aware. has 5Ix,Ds 'ue
isted IN tins District OF bringing separate snits n,
Custom House bonds, handed over for coection a,
me same time, IN which he insructs me rs foIlovs
r rom the general convenience that results from
$3.50 "h NttllUH luht you should CDnttuun
TO proceed according to the usages of the &C..
with this modification, that when YOU have Ye,son |
10 believe that the sum due upon several borJs
winch may be joined IN one suit, together with tbe
eos'si viii no' De collected, you will JOIN them IN
one sun, unless there be some good reason IN ,bs
contrary, so that the cost bills may be reduced -
mucn as possible In order 10 enable me TO ami,
ms instruction 10 the cases Uf the extended hond
o, nelson ). Elliott * Co, David ". Lord. nnd |
Edwin Lord 20, recently handed over 20 s,,,, 4
T.. Of e.
own possession on the subject to inquire Of voy |
Whether the cases. or any Of them in your opinion
come within the rule stated by the Solicitor"
, 'hls ietier Mr. lioyt replied: "In answer IN |
ths inquiry, have 10 state that, from nv know !
ledge OF the affairs OF the firms referred 10 80
tam no uou6t that every dollar Of their indebted
ness 10 the United States, and oil expenses lberso
VIII DO collected Without comment on tho mo !
az RUE ADOPTED by the Solicitor, and recommended
10 he ulsrlct attorney, 10 multiply suits for he o,
emoiumeni, and for the benefit of the cls,L, al |
marsha, oy an accumulation Of costs, provided tbe |
debtors to the Government are soIvent. o,be-,.se
!" ''' hHseI 70 one suit on all bonds against tho
same person or firm, 50 as To lessen the costs o,i,
the Government, II will suffice 10 remark. thar lie
assurances gwen by the collector 10 tie distr,r, a.,
Iorhey, IN lh's case, were utterly without Cound,
lion, as each and oil OF the defendants proved nj
vent, and the costs taxed and paid by the Govc,n-
i"en', amounting 70 near $4,000, has not been col.
Iected from The defendants, and was CLAIR loes ~
The Treasury. The privilege granted Inv the g.
liciier tn Mr. Butler, TO bring separate su.ts n, -,
venue bonds, and thereby increase the orno,,a, ~
ms Iees was Freely used, and resulted in tie nerc.
sNy Of Iar-e advances from tie Treasury 10 nsy
debtors. 7''S' ''sO''eh'
The practice of the Collector. which has Loco
before referred TO, Of making se,x,ros ,.,, ~
without cause, Of small parcels of goods Will -
almost every case, we're abandoned bv the oyyno,s
as the cost OF claiming them IN Court vould bc
greater than the value OF the goods seized ms ice,
Of benefit only 20 the officers OF the Che
toms nnd Of the Courts, while the Governn,en, L,.
oeen compelled IN some cases 70 pay bills of costs
IN amount the proceeds OF the eo,Js
condemned. The following table will show m. 70
sun o. fourteen cases where judgement was entered
ny default; which Is given as a specimen Of ,be
triIhg sum gained by the Government in sneb
even where the United States succeed
m obtaining verdict Of condemnation op,ir,, H.
goods or Judgements taken by dcfau {.
10 ~ An'I Ma,shars CbrFs D.rAry yo,,, /
it, 500 e ssio5 s5 5;'ii 10 si e.; 81 s,!, e.
= Isl Al 1881 81 % 1913 i.s cG
81, los ~ 1926 5J25 ca % tet ~
an lOl " 1926 5j2j so ~ IGi 10
az ~ :. - % y5 80 - lss 80
In' y, . 90 80 - 20 5O9s tG0 ~
5thi 60 -l A. So 57-5 81 - -
sth, 5J2s 4G5s ~ 7c 20 ~
9Th g. IS 5y1s gzoi r, % ~
10Th, 223 sis2 s9e- 90 5a oo -,
1iih, 2G15 1886 Sc 81 20 go ,sS ~
1911, 3G6 % 1926 GOc5 ~ oG 5 ,yy W.
18Th, 2iOGi ~ ~ Cjc9 ss"t o..
i4h, 46i ~ ~ a. G327 100 o. =,
: Hs2 73g a LOSS - slt 81 s7c, "a oc,-7
81. -