New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1857-09-10
Department news.

From the Washington Union Of the Sd inst, we
extract the following official intelligence
TARIFF OF 1s57.-On appeal, the Secretary of the
Treasury has decided that the Collector Of the Port of
Philadelphia properly charged duty of Is per
on the articles Of import, known as chlorate of
potash and sa acetosella." ~
The Secretary Of the Treasury has also affirmed the
decisions or the Collectors of Boston and New York.
assessing duty OF 10 per cent on refined borax,T
and affirmed the decision Of the latter assessing
duty Of p per cent on dlberss, and per cent on
School LAsDs.-where school sections are deficient
i'll quantity, the law makes provision for indemnity
upon other lands Patents are not issued for lands
selected as indemnity, but upon the tracts being
the second section OF the act of Nav 2Gth as that
law declares that such ndemntyIands are to be held
upon the same tenure and nnon the same terms for
the support Of schools section SIXTEEN and the iss-
ing OF patents, of course, becomes necessary The
proper entries in such cases however, are made upon
the books of local land Offices as to prevent inter
ference and secure the title to the school authorities
the Post-Ofice Department will shortly leave this
city for New York for the nnrpose Of facilitating the
transportation Of the California overland mai:
IMPORTANT DECIsIOS.-SubJoined is the decision Of
the Attorney General in the case Of Joseph l. Hey
wood late Marshal of Utah
ATTORNEY GENERALS orrrcEl
SOS @.{ ~ Aug. %, 1884,
| Sir: By the act of 3Ist August, 1852, Go U. s.
Laws 99) the President is authorized to allow pay
ment from the judicial fund Of extraordinary ex-
penses incurred by officers Of the United States,
though payment Of such expenses be not specially
| provided for. You send me the accounts, and all
paper relating thereto, Of Joseph L. Haywood, late
Marshal Of Utah, and ask my opinion whether the
expenses for which he caims to be allowed come
within the provisions Of the act referred TO-
To justify the allowance Of expenses like those
which the late Marshal Of Utah exhibits it is
sary be should show 1st that they were incurred by
ministerial officer; I'd, that they were incurred in
executing the laws Of the United States and, Sd,
that they were regularly taxed by the district
circuit court Of the distris: in which the services
charged for were rendered. II the accounts under
consideration within these requirements they
, ought to be allowed and If not, not. What are the
facts?
More than twenty thousand dollars Of this claim
for conveying the judges Of the Territory to and
from the places OF holding the supreme and district
courts. numerous guard was provided, and part
of the account is for the pay Of the men who COM
posed it. The hire OF the horses, wagons and other
of transportation for the guard s also charged
To this is added the price Of provisions, forage and
medicine, and the expense of teams to haul them as
o well carriages for the judges themselves. The
sum total is swelled by great many curious items,
which it would be hard to classify. "
These expenses are within the law, 90 far they
extraordinary expenses for they are very extra
,s ordinary both in amount and character But they
a not the expenses of ministerial officer. The
expenses of judge on his way to court are his OWL
expenses, and he cannot cali them the expenses Of a
at ministerial officer merely because he allowed the
l marshal TO hire his carriage and servants and to pay
~ his bills on the road. The large sums which these
journeys seem to have cost makes no difference, since
the law does not cover the expenses Of judicial off
Ger, however extraordinary they may happen to be
If the marshal had furnished to each OF the judges
single horse. and made claim upon the Government
for the use of them, he would have had case jus
the same in principle as that which he has in fac
te presented. The legal merits of the not an
better because it is for twenty thousand instead of
hundred dollars
ra Another objection to this claim is equally fatal
the expenses were not incurred by the Marshal in
ecuting the laws Of the United States. The act c
'ut Congress confines the powers of the President
that he can allow no expenses except what are il
Cured in the execution Of Judicial process. But her
there no judgment decree, order or process c
" any court to be carried into effect, was the Ma
shal in the line of any duty which the law commando
nd. him to perform The law does tell the judges to
at court but it says nothing to the Marshal abot
bringing them there. The mandate is directed
er the judges alone. When judge obeys that manda
by going to court, whether on foot or Oh horsebac
bib or in a carriage, surrounded by cavaleade of on
riders it can hardly be said he is executing the Ia
any more than juror when he answers to his nam
us a witness when he obeys the subpoena, OF eieI
OF when he makes up the record Certain it is, at
events, that the judges performance of his daty !
mss going into court is not an execution OF law BY
o. Marshal. L %
the spects they have not been legally taxed. The act
ira- Congress requires special dIGtion by The Cou
This was taxed tit taxed at ally by a Judge at
chambers; by judge when he was not in the Ter
tory: by Judge after he resigned his office by o
Judge when the court consisted of three You cam
consider bill properly taxed under this act until
fore is done in and by the proper court duly organic
ervica and racor3 made of their 5ecis;on The
elusive evidence of this will be the certificate OF
clerk, attested by the seal.
and Some of these expenses might be allowed if tn
were properly taxed, but the greatest part of the
are of character which would exclude them. ho
ever they might be authenticated.
) in am most respectfully, ETC..
een Hon. J. THOMPSON, Secretary of the Interior.