Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-08-08
YOUNG ASKS FOR FEES
Clerk Says He Won't Act in
Lunacy Hearings
UNLESS he GETS THEM
SUBMITS AN OPINION By ATToR-
NEY DARLINGTON.
Whole Question VIII Be Referred to
Controller Of Treasury for
Adjudication.
UNLESS HE GETS THEM

The District Commissioners will refer to
the controller Of the treasury for an opin-
ion a statement from Mr.. John R. Young.
clerk of the Supreme Court Of the District
OF Columbia. in which he states he is I'M
willing to render service in cases where
the District and it's Commissioners institute
and prosecute judicial proceedings in the
District courts without the payment of
fees.
The matter especially involved is that of
the prosecution of lunacy proceedings.
Quite large number of these cases are
brought before the Probate Court each
week. and If the District is required to pay
the court fees the amount will cut a con-
siderable figure in the local expenses.
In support Of his contention that he Is en-
titled to fees from the District, Clerk
Young has forwarded to the Commissioners
an opinion secured by him from Mr.. J. J.
harrington. In which the latter holds that
unoer the laws as they now stand the clerk
snai! receive the costs in question.
rms position Is combatted by the auditors
ofdce OF the District Of Columbia, and Mr..
"A. Iweedale. the acting auditor. has for
warded to the Commissioners a brief from
Mr.. ]. T. Petty, the former auditor, who ia
familiar with the facts involved. Calling
the matter to the attention Of the Commits
sioners. Mr.. Tweedale says:
MI. Petty's Contention.
The clerk Of the Supreme Court OF the
blstrlct or Columbia has expressed his I'M
Willingness to render service in cases where
the District and its Commissioners fnst-
tute and prosecute judicial proceedings in
the supreme Court OF the District of Co.
iumbfa without the payment Of fees
1T is understood the clerk contends that
under the law now in force he Is entitled
10 fees IN all cases instituted by the Dis
trict and its Commissioners in the Supreme
court, ana In particular, to fees for sery-
ices rendered In lunacy proceedings under
the act of January 81. 1899, and the de-
hc1ency act OF March 8, 1903
i. therefore. have the honor to suggest
that the controller of the treasury be re-
quested to furnish the Commissioners with
an opinion:
Whether under existing law. fees for
services rendered in the institution and
prosecution of judicial proceedings in the
supreme Court Of the District of Columbia
and more particularly in view Of the sew
eral special laws on the subject. fees in
lunacy proceedings should be paid to the
clerk OF the Supreme Court"
Mr. Tweedale forwards for the consider
alton OF the Commissioners and the con-
troller. when the matter shall have passed
into his hands the opinion submitted nv
brief prepared by Mr. Petty. Mr. Darling
tons opinion represents the contention Of
MI Young and MI. Petty's brief gives the
District side of the matter.
Congress Passed a Law.
In his brief Mr.. Petty states that the
District of Columbia was required to pay
fees to the clerk of the District Supreme
Court until July 7. 1898. when Congress
passed a law to the effect that thereafter
the District should not be required to pay
fees to the clerk of the District Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals or to the
United States marshal. but should be en-
titled to institute and prosecute proceed
ings In the courts without the payment Of
fees. The law provided also that the Dis
trfct was entitled to the services Of the
marshal in all civil processes.
These provisions were contained in the
same bill-the deficiency actin which the
procedure in lunacy cases was changed
by the provision that the marshal should
impanel juries in such cases from the
jurors in attendance upon the criminal
courts.
After the enactment Of this law no fees
were paid to the clerk of the courts until
the passage of the act Of January 81, 1899,
which again changed the form Of proceed
ings for the admission of patients from
the District to the Government Hospital for
the Insane. Fees were paid to the clerk
after January 81, 1899 because Of the fol-
lowing language in the act of that date:
Each Of such physicians to be paid q per
diem compensation Of SO by the District Of
Columbia, on the certificate OF the court
that his account for such services is cor
rect and Just, and other witnesses exam
ined on such application shall be paid by
the District the fees and allowances pre-
scribed by law for witnesses summoned in
behalf OF the United States; and all other
costs of the proceeding shall be paid by
the District"
Not Entitled to Fees.
The auditors office contends that the
clerk was not entitled to fees even under
this act, for II did not operate to repeal the
clear and express provisions Of the de-
ficiency bill Of 1898 giving the District the
right to institute proceedings in court with
out the payment Of fees 1t is claimed by
the District authorities that the language
Of the act of January 81. 1899-''and all
other costs Of the proceeding shall be paid
by the District'-did not mean that the
costs or fees should be paid to the clerk Of
the Supreme Court Of the District.
The clerks name Is not mentioned in the
act, for 1t Is provided that the proceedings
"shall be commenced by petition presented
in open court to the justice Of the Supreme
Court holding a special term for Orphans
Court business"
The auditor declares the clerk has moth
ing to do with proceedings in the Orphans
Court, and he could only have been author
lied to receive costs accruing in proceed
ings therein by act of Congress.
However. fees were paid to the clerk In
lunacy cases prosecuted under the act Of
January 81, 1899, Notwithstanding the fact
that the law contemplated the fling of Pc
titions in lunacy cases. not in the office of
the clerk Of the Supreme Court Of the Dis
trict of Columbia. but in the office of the
register Of wills. who acts as clerk OF the
Orphana' or Probate Court.
It is commended further on behalf Of the
District that the act of March 3, 1903 pro-
viding that commitments Of insane persons
should be in conformity with the law in
force on the 3Oth of January. 1899, speci-
fically repealed the act of January 81, 1885,
which provided that "an other costs should
be paid by the District" The language of
the act of March 3, 1908. specified January
80, 1899, the auditor says so as to repeal
the act that was passed January 81, 1899,
the day following:
To Relieve the District.
The claim is made that Congress. in repeal
ing the act Of January 81. 1899. was actual
ed by desire to relieve the District Of the
expense Of the proceedings in such cases.
The great expense OF the proceedings prior
to the date Of the repeal and the reinstate-
ment OF the old law, was made manifest by
a request from the Commissioners for q
deficiency appropriation Of $500. The old