The Washington times., 1901-10-15
IMPORTANT CUSTOMS RULING.
A Decision on the Refund OF Duties
WrongfuIIy Exncted.


The Comptroller of the Treasury yes
| terday decided an important point in re-
gard to the refund OF customs duties. and
in connection Herewith sent the follow
ing communication to the Secretary OF
the Treasury:
Il am in receipt through the Acting
Secretary, Of reference bearing date the
9Th instant. accompanied by your letter oi
September 16. 1901. to the collector OF Gus
toms at New York: also of the COM
munication of Judge E. Henry Lacombe,
United States circuit judge for the
Southern district of New York, dated the
Sth instant
Each of these communications has
reference to a recent decision made by
me wherein it was held that a Judgment
entered against the United States for the
wrongful exaction of customs duties
should be satisfied by the issuing of a
warrant in the name of the judgment
plaintiff. and having the same transmit
ted to the clerk OF the court In which the
judgment is entered, and said warrant de-
livered to the Judgment creditor by the
said clerk, at the same time taking salts
faction of such judgment upon the record.
When 1 made such holding l only had
in mind the orderly payment of judg-
ment.
1T is now represented by Judge La
combe that some other person than the
clerk of the court should be required TO
take the responsibility OF identifying the
judgment creditor and securing satisfac-
tion of the judgment from the proper
party.
1T has also been represented to me
that attorneys who represent or have
represented these claimants will expert
eBce difficulty in collecting their fees in
such cases, for the reason that the clerk
of the court will insist on making pay
ment direct TO the judgment plaintiff and
taking satisfaction thereof from said
plaintiff
''It is my understanding that it is among
the legal duties of clerks of courts to
receive moneys in payment of judgments
taken in their courts and to pay over same
to the proper Judgment plaintiffs.
doubt II the sureties on bond of
collector of customs would be liable for
moneys misappropriated by said col
lector of customs put in his hands for
the payment of judgments against the
United States. They certainly would not
be liable unless it is one of the legal du-
ties of collector to receive and iisburse
such moneys. If such duty is one of the
duties of his office l have overlooked that
fact.
Referring now to the objections raised
by Judge Lacomhe, l certainly can imag-
Inc no officer of the Government who has
better facilities for identifying a judg
ment plaintiff than the clerk of the court
In which such person takes a judgment.
Moreover, the Judgment, which should be
satisfied on the record thereof, is present
at the time payment is to be made.
If the clerk of the Circuit Court for
the Southern district of New York IS
short of clerical force with which to prop
erly perform the duties of his office, that
is matter for Congressional considera-
tion.
1T is not to be understood that I de-
eide, or have attempted to decide, that
the Secretary of the Treasury is confined
to the method pointed out in the payment
of a Judgment against the United States.
The method of payment, and what instru-
mentalities he may use in effecting such
payment, are questions largely of his ad-
ministrative discretion. But in order for
disbursing officers to obtain credits for
disbursement in the accounting offices
they. must present proper vouchers,
showing that the payment has been made
TO the proper claimants.
Il know of no authority which would
Justify a collector of customs, even If he
could be held to be n disbursing officer
for the payment of judgments against
the United States, in making such pay
ments to the attorneys of the judgment
creditors. Under the regulations of the
department an attorney of record might
have the warrant delivered to him. but
It should be issued in the name of the
proper claimant. The officers of the Gov
ernment are not supposed to know of the
existence of equities between attorneys
and clients relative to fees or advance
mentS made to clients. The Government
deals only with the original claimant
himself"