Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1842-06-13

to M unjust attack upon suGdry manufacturers
into which Poindexter was led by his antI-tariH
preiudices AS to the extracts which we have
published, the Atlas gives them all credit in fact
most of them copied from that very paper.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY BUFFERS CON
SCIENCE AND LECTURES OF COL
LECTOR HOYT-EXORBlTANT FEES,
CHARGES, &c.-CoNCLUDED.
The following extract from the deposition OF
Jonathan Miller, u respectable counsellor in the
courts OF New York, md who was OF counsel III
most OF the compromise cases, is given, TO snow
what the practice Of courts has been on this sub
jec His opinion, given un,er oath, is in accord
ance with those OF the other counsel examined by
the commissioners
Question TO- " hat is the fee allowed 10y law TO
Il District Attorney, IN arising under
breach nf the revenue laws? Pease state 10y what
authority OF law practice Bcnlnmln f. Butler,
District Attorney Of the United States, demanded
of John ray lor, Jr. II fee of five hundred dollars,
in his character Of District Attorney, in case not
actually pending in court, the writ not having
| been served Aud state also, what sums were
demanded under the compromises made with
! other merchants for whom you acted as counsel,
/ and whether the payment OF such fees as said
! District Attorney demanded was not made con-
! dition of his assent to the compromise proposed
and agreed TO by the Collector
TO which the following answer was given:
.ansptr 10 question 10. :" must hcg leave TO
refer TO the law, TO 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 Tay
| lor ir as u Tee 1t was not demanded by MIR But
| ler but by Mr.. Hoyt for him. as before stated;
nor did Mr.. Butler, to my knowledge, ever de-
mand the payment Of such fees, or any fees, as
District Attorney, us IL condition Of his assent 10
any compromise; but they were conditions made
by Mr. H., and the sums named by him, which in
my Judgment, were exceedingly high"
" he her it required a"tectre" from MIR. Ioyt
! to induce Mr.. Butler to receive these fees which
he had exac,ed from the importing merchants,
without the authority Of law, must be left to infer
ence but it is certain that he did receive them,
and passed official receipts for the same. The
enornity of the bills of cost rendered against the
Government by the District Attorney, and other
officers of The Court, may be seen by n few exam
pies which are selected from the great mass of
| others OF n similar character.
In 1882 ut the June term OF The District
Court, the costs motion Tor Judg-
menls against Lee, Bnbcock x Co. on 20
bonds, amounted to SlS60 40
On the 25lh of the same month, on one
motion for Judgments against Gibson,
Post and Gibson on A bonds, 1892 50
On the 2lst September OF the same year,
one motion for judgments against
Henry b. Hart on bonds, S47 90
On the 9th OF October, one motion, on
bonds against Gibson. Post and Gibson, 554 GA
On the 81 of March, 1910, one motion a
gainst b. Lee and Co on 26 bonds, 2,5l4 AZ
On the 9th of February, lo4l one mo-
ton against the house, on 46
bonds, 1888 90
On the 8h of April, 1910, one motion
gainst Francis Bacon, David N. Lord,
and Edwin Lord on 81 bonds, 3,l97 s.
On The same day, ond motion against Lord
& Pearson on l6 Bonds 1924 10
On the 5tII May, of the same year, one mo-
ton against Nelson J. Elliot and Reuben
Elliot, number OF bonds not named, 1876 II
Without gong further into the enumera
ton, il appears that on IA motions Tor
judgments, on 20G bonds the amount of
costs charged to the government, is S23,Oo7 40
Not one dollar Of which collected from tho
defendants In relation to portion OF these bonds,
IL correspondence took place between the District
Attorney aud the Solicitor Of the Treasury An
extract Is given below from the letter of MIR. But
Ter to Mr.. iloy,, which recognizes the instructions
OF The Solicitor on the subject, and asks nlorma-
ton from the collector relative 10 tile solvency Of
ohIigors in these bonds. Mr.. Butler says:
~. S. District attorneys Office,
New York, March 10, 1910.
Sir IL have received from the Solicitor OF the
Treasury II communication on the subject OF the
practice, which, you are aware, has already
, existed in this District, of bringing separate suits
on Custom House bonds, handed over for colec-
, lion al the same time, in which he instructs me as
follows: From the general convenience that
; results from several suits, | am willing that you
should proceed according 10 the usages OF the Of
| flee, with This modification, that, when you have
reason to believe that the sum due upon several
bonds, which may he joined in one suit, together
9 with the costs, will not be collected. you will Join
them in one suit, unless there he some good ren-
r son To the contrary 50 that the cost bills may be
reduced as much ms possible In order to enable
me to uppy this instruction to the cases of the
: extended bonds OF Melon J. Elliot and Co, David
r | N. Lord and Edwin Lord and Co recently hand
ed over to suit, beg leave, in the absence OF any
information III my own possession on the subject
= to inquire of you whether the cases, or any OF
them, in your opinion, come within Tie rules sta
Il ted by The Solicitor
To this leltcr Mr.. Iloyt replied: "ln answer &c
this inquiry, have to ate that from my know
i edge OF the affairs OF the firms referred 10, | ell
= terrain doubt that every dollar of their ndebt
J., edness TO the United States, and oil expenses
:, thereon, will be collected" Without common
, on the moral rule adopted by The Solicitor, AM
j. recommended TO the District Attorney, to multi
10 ply suits for his own enlolumeDt, and Tor III
if benefit of the clerk and marshal, by an accnmu
~ lalion of costs, provided the debtors 10 the gov
'" eminent are soly ent otherwise to limit himself 4
t. one suit on all bonds against The same person o
Ell firm TO lessen the costs against the govern
ment, il will suffice 10 remark, that the assurance
given by the Collector to the District Attorney, il
s. this case, were utterly without foundation, as eac
and all OF the defendants proved insovent, an
V the COSTS taxed and paid by the government, d
t mounting to near $4,000, has not been coecte
IF from the defendants, and was a clear loss to tn
10 Treasury. The privilege granted by the Solic
tor to Mr. Butler, to bring separate suits on reve
u nue. bonds, and thereby increase the amount OF hi
to fees was freely used, and resulted in The necesslt
n ofarge advances from the Treasury to pay cos
= incurred in this manner against nsovent debtors
:. The practice of the Collector, which has bee
haln raft. IN of
as without cause, of some parcels OF goods, which
in almost every case, were abandoned by III
owners, as the cost of claiming them in cou
no would lie more than the value OF the goods seze'
ID has been productive of benefit only to the Officer
ID of the Customs aud OF the courts, while the gov
:. eminent has been compelled, in some cases,
~ pay bills of costs lranscendng in amount the pre-
d. caeds of The uonds condemned. The iOllOWn