Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-10-29

Treasurer Of the United States, may be APP
pointed, he being the proper officer to repre-
sent the United States" The Judge appoints
Samuel Casey, Treasurer of the United States,
and he gives bond, signing it Treasurer Of the
United States. If this proceeding is valid, the
United States have been appointed admins
traitor of the deceased. They act through their
Treasurer. 1t is not substitution or delegation,
but direct action, by their proper agent.
This must be so, or the law is again NULL
he'd. A man has been appointed who is nei
ther next of kin, nor creditor, nor appointed
by the consent of the person first entitled, and
who has not applied for it while there are
creditors applying.
No creditor can delegate his right to the
office, 80, and /, 10.
The only thing that looks like, nomination,
is the s25, of the 5th sub. CHI. If the United
States is not administrator, then Mr.. Casey is
mere stranger, who has never applied.
But it is further urged that Mr. Casey is in
as Treasurer Of the United States.
]. BY what law can he assume this function !?
His duties are defined. Stat at large, &C.
lfthen he receives the fund, it is in the trea.
sury of the United States So how is it to be
got ont if the case shall be decided against the
United States I? By what appropriation How
is he to be tried? Again he is in as Treasurer
He has given bond to the United States. Can
the Treasurer of the United States give bond
as Treasurer, to the United States?
2. 1t is said this is mere descriptio persona,
and he has bound his heirs, not his successors.
and therefore, although he is in as Treasurer,
yet he is only bound as private person. The
Government applies for his appointment as
Treasurer, be being the proper officer to repre-
sent them, the largest creditor-the Govern
nent itself claiming the right to administer.
The District Attorney unites in this applica.
ton. Mr.. Casey himself asks for it in the same
way, -" as ADORE" and at the foot of these appli-
cations the judge says, Appoint Samuel Ca
sey Treasurer of the United States" Spread
out these defenses in pleato suit on the bond,
and they show that he was throughout acting for
and in behalf of the Government in his official
capacity. 1t would be complete answer to
any such suits. The authorities in the note to
I'd Wheat. cited by the United States are con.
elusive the question.
3. If it was intended as descriptio persona it
is fraud on the law, and on the court The
law does not authorize a delegation of author
ty, or grant to stranger in such case, and
the judge did not intend to grant an Office to
to Mr.. Casey, which he was not authorized by
the law to grant, and his appointment is void
Nv. There were creditors applying. Messrs.
Bradley and Carlisle are objected to on the
ground that fees OF counsel agreed upon be-
tween the parties, do not constitute debt re-
cognized in law or equity.
The case Of Law vs.. Ewell, Cranch, cir. ct.
TIA, is the only one relied on. That was for a
contingent fee. But, however that may be, it
has not been followed. The case of Gardi-
ner and others, in this court, VS.. White, has
established that counsel fees may be recovered.
1t is the law Of almost every State in the
Union. Vermont, Mass. N. York, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, and so far as there
are any reported cases, all agree they may be
recovered.
And they cited, cases from 81 yir. l Cushing.
Some from New York, and several from Penn
sylvania.
The proof Of their claims is according to
law. They are the only creditors capable of
taking the oath, and giving the bond required
BY law. The Court now has the subject under
consideration.