Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1851-12-06

any addition thereto The fee bills Of the respective
States were thus made the standard by which the fees OF
the officers Of the United States courts to be COM
puted At the time this law was passed there were put
sixteen States the Union in all of which fees were pre-
scribed by law Since that date fifteen new States have
been admitted many of which there no fees pre-
scrbed by law for attorneys, and in others they are
equate in amount.
In most of the older States the fee bills have been
changed from time time and in some OF them very
liberal allowances have been made to officers Aquestion
has therefore arsen whether the law OF 1893 tine terms
Of which are in the present ense shall be construed to
refer to the fees allowed in the respective States at tne
date of the act to have prospective relation 70 te
changes subsequently made. In some OF the older States
il received the former construction and In oners te
latter The more general practice, however, is 10 give ~
prospective operation Under this construction IN those
States where the allowances to their olcers IS nper
and the business United States courts large the
compensation the officers of those courts became extra
VACANT To remedy this evil proyiso was inserted IN
the general appropriation act, approved March o iofi
to limit their fees IN cases where tner ovl
pensation exceeded 81 800, to the fees allowed by the
State statutes to attorneys shers and clerks for similar
services. Difficulties having been experienced IN admin
sterng this law because it could not be known until the
end of the year whether the compensation OF the omcer
would exceed ST 500 not and it therefore lmpos-
sibe for him tell by what rule he should graduate s
charges provso inserted in the appropriation act
of 1912 recurring all those officers to return
accounts of their emeuments, and limiting the charges in
all in the districts Of New York to those allowed by
law to the officers Of the highest courts OF original urs-
dicton in that State Some judges have ned ,nat .ne
proyso in the act 84I temporary in its character
and expired by limitation. Others have held that IT was
repealed by the proyiso in the act OF lo42 ana conse
aueny that the of 1899 furnished the only standard
for calculating their fees and thus the whole subject Is
involved in confusion and difficulty and the practical
effects are inequality and injustice.
The report Of the Comptroller exposes many ingenious
devices by which exorbant compensation has been OBJ
tanned by marshals attorneys and clerks, to which in
vte your particular attention 1t will be seen that attor
neys have in instances received many as TWELVE
in the cause and like number OF
fees making briefs and coming to court prepared
for trial In case district attorney and his prede
received aggregate of fees in single criminal
prosecution of five hundred dollars when In some OF
the States he could by possibility have received more
than twenty dollars for the same service and IN others
not much.
In some States the practice prevails of sueng out
habeas corpus to bring prisoner from the jail into the
court and formal warrant to return him to jail again
and if the trial continues week, similar proceedings are
instituted from day to day. So also when witnesses are
committed to custody in default Of surety for their ap
pearance they brought out from day to day. as often
as they may be needed testify and returned again to
prison by the complicated and expensive proceedings
AS further illustration of the confusion OF the law in
regard to the fees of officers Of the COURTS will state
single example: The law establishing courts in New
Mexico and Utah provides in substance that the attorneys
in those Territories shall receive the same fees and salary
the attorney for the Territory Of Oregon Upon turn
ing the establishing courts in Oregon IT is found
that the attorney for that Territory was to receive the
same fees allowed to the attorney for the late
Territory Of Wisconsin, and examining that act 1T is
found that that officer entitled to receive the same
fees and salary as the attorney for Michigan Territory
which described in the act OF February eth, 1875
creating the Office of Attorney Of the United States for
each of the Territories being the usual fees Of Office
and an annual salary of $3.50 Here FIVE references
for attorneys fees in the Territories of New Mexico and
Utah which utterly fail to lead to any satisfactory result
for want of certainty and it is with regard to the fees
of attorneys and clerks in Minnesota and Oregon In the
Territory of Michigan the statutes allowed attorneys
taxable fee or COSTS and the Comptroller states that
therefore could be allowed according to law in the Ter
rtory of Wisconsin, and that be allowed to the
attorneys in Minnesota Oregon, New Mexico, or Utah.
might proceed to point out many other defects, OBJ
securities, and ncongrues in the laws and many fragrant
abuses which have grown up under hem but, as there
has doubtless been enough said to call the attention Of
Congress- to the subject shall content myself with
ference to the report Of the Comptroller for more full and
detailed information Enough will appear from that TO
warrant the recommendation that all the laws relating to
fees be promptly and carefully revised 50 as to secure
uniformity in compensation and to prevent future abuses
Justice and economy require that the compensatory
Of all public ofcers should be sumcient 70 command the
services Of men Of talent and character But should be
uniform in all parts Of the Union having proper reference
the expense Of living and the amount Of service In
no event should there be such disparity now EXIST
nor should the compensation allowed to minteral
officers bear such disproporon to that of the judges As
practicable the compensation of attorneys should
be made by fixed salaries and in civil suits the fees Of
clerks and marshas should be about equal to the
VI Vic lcco " NtAIe Objects
but uniform in all the States should it be found
cessay in some cases. where the aggregate may not yield
sufficient compensation to make up the deficiency out o.
the Treasury.
Every facility should be afforded to sutors to assert
their rights in the courts of the United States The
orbtant fees which constitute almost nsuperabe
obstacle to seeking redress of injuries in those tribunals
should be diminished
The Federal Courts are daily increasing their rela
tive Importance The tribunals of the States being more
exposed to the influence Of local preudices and popular
excitement less confidence will be felt by nonresident
sutors in their impartiaty and independence and wher
they haye rights assert injuries to redress in sister
State they will desire to seek their remedy In the courts
| Of the United States.
Similar considerations suggest the proprety Of gene
raj revision Of the salaries Of the Judges, with view
render them uniform and proporonate to the labor
and responsibility Of the Office. The following table vii
show the amounts which they respectively receive:
Table shocnig the salaries Of the District Judges Of the Uto
z Districts Annual salary
Maine 81, 800
! New Hampshire 1000
i Massachusetts, $500
Vermont 1900
Rhode Island 1850
Connecticut 1850
| New York Northern District) 2,e00
/ New York lSouthern Dstrictl $500
New Jersey l500
Pennsylvania, Eastern District) 1850
Pennsylvania, Western District) l,soo
Delaware l,500
| Maryland $500 2,000
| Virginia, Eastern District) 1880
! Virginia, (Western District) LOCO