Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-09-12
MATTER OF NOTARIAL FEES
Right of District Official to Collect Of
Other District officials.
The Question Brought to Attention of
the mmissiOners-Health
Officers Comment.

During the presence of yellow fever at
the Hampton Soldiers Home recently
tain employees of the District health office
were ordered by the Commissioners to
proceed to Alexandria, Va, for the purpose
of inspecting passengers en- route to Wash
ington Several days ago the accounts of
two of these employees were brought before
Commissioner Ross, and his attention was
called to the fact that among other items
of expenditures incurred by them in obey
ing the orders of the Commissioners was
that of 30 cents each paid to Mr.. Harry C.
Mclean. the chief clerk of the health Of
flee, for attesting, a notary public, to
the correctness of their accounts
Mr. Ross referred the matter to DR.. VIM
c. Woodward. the health officer, with the
inquiry whether the notarial fees referred
to might not cause some criticism at the
Treasury Department. Mr.. Ross explained
to DIR. Woodward that it has not been the
custom in the office of the secretary to the
board of Commissioners to make charge
for notarial services when rendered to Dis
trict officials affecting their accounts. He
also inquired whether Mr.. Mclean receives
fees during business hours for his services
as notary when perfectng the accounts OF
District officials.
In reply, Or. Woodward called attention
70 the fact that the accounting officers of
the Treasury Department have recently
passed an account, apparently without
question, in which an employee of that de-
partment claimed reimbursement for
tary's fee paid by him to a fellow employe.
This. DIR. Woodward says. he has reason
to believe, was in no way an exceptional
occurrence.
Not Chief Clerks Duty.
But, considering the present case with
cut reference to the precedent thus estab-
iished" says DR.. Woodward, 'it is evil
dent that 1t is part of the duty of the
chief clerk of the health department to af-
fix his certificate a notary public to
counts of other employees of that depart
ment, for he is not required, either by law
by airy regulation or order of the Com
missioners to be qualified for the per-
fcrmance of such work. His commission.
If and when he has one, is entirely person
al and would not lapse were he to sever
his connection with the health department.
There appears, therefore, to be no reason
to regard his salary as the chief clerk as
having been intended to compensate him
for his services as notary public nor any
ground upon which the District govern
ment can claim his services as such, with
out compensation, if he happens to hold
such commission
DR.. Woodward also calls Mr.. Ross atten-
don to the fact that the fees of notaries
public are regulated by law here. and he
cites an opinion of the Court of Appeals to
the effect that notary public has no right
to ask more or less than the fees pre-
scribed, nor has any person the right to
require such service of the notary for less
than the amount prescribed by law
From this Dr. Woodward argues that no
notary public can be required to render
services without compensation as, he
states. has apparently been suggested
should be done in the present case. 1t also
seems doubtful to DR.. Woodward whether
notary can render such services without
fee, even voluntarily, and he remarks
that If these conclusions be correct the
practice which prevails in the office of the
secretary to the board of Commissioners of
rendering such services without charge
cannot be regarded as a correct precedent
to follow.
No Interference With Duty
The official duties of his chief clerk, says
DR.. Woodward do not appear to have been
interfered with. and he is inclined to be-
lieve that Mr.. Mclean really assisted in
the dispatch of the work of the health de-
partment because he enabled the employees
to obtain the notarial attestation without
their leaving the Office.
In the absence of Mr.. Mclean, he states
he is unable to say whether he receives fees
for his services as notary public when
perfecting accounts of District officials dur
ing business hours, the instances when Mr..
Mclean has been called upon for such a
purpose being rare In conclusion, DR..
Woodward says that in view of all the
facts and the law, he is unable to see any
just cause for criticism in the fact that
Mr. Mclean has collected for his services
the fees specified by law If, however, the
Commissioners be of different opinion, be
is sure Mr. Mclean will refund the amount
collected. DR.. Woodward also suggests that
if the auditor believes he cannot properly
pay the items referred to he should for
maily disaiow them and leave the claim
ants to secure redress by appealing.
through the Commissioners, to the con-
troller of the treasury, if they 50 desire.