Case: CHARLES B. FARIS v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Faris v. United States
Decision Date: 1888-06-11
Docket Number: No. 15588
Citation: 23 Ct. Cl. 374
Volume: 23
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: CHARLES B. FARIS v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 374–376

Head Matter:
CHARLES B. FARIS v. THE UNITED STATES.
[No. 15588.
Decided June 11, 1888.]
On the Proofs.
In April, 1885, this court holds that a United States commissioner is entitled to docket fees. In January, 1886, the decision is affirmed by the Supreme Court. On the 4th of August following, Congress appropriate $50,000 for the fees of commissioners, etc., with this provision added, “ but they shall not be entitled to any doclcetfees.”
Where the Supreme Court renders a decision affirming the right of United States commissioners to docket fees, and Congress a few months afterward appropriate money for their fees, with this provision added to the appropriation clause, “ but they shall not be entitled to any docket fees,” it must he held that the legislative purpose was to abolish such fees in future.
The Reporters’ statement of tbe ease:
The following are the facts of this case as found by the court:
I.The claimant was a commissioner of the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Kentucky from January 12, 1886, to June 30,1887.
II. The Circuit Court of the United States for said district, in compliance with a request by the Attorney-General, made an order requiring, among other things, that each of the commissioners of said court should keep a docket, in which he should enter on the day the transaction should occur the issuance of each warrant, the name of the person upon whose complaint and request the same was issued, the nature of the offense, and the name of the officer to whom the warrant was delivered for service, together with the proceedings had under said warrant; that there should also be entered therein the names of the witnesses present and examined, and their fees, the name of the guard, if any, and his fees, and also the marshal’s and deputy marshal’s fees, together with the mileage and expenses allowed by law, and the said order has continued of force.
III. From January 1,1886, to June 30, 1887, claimant issued his warrants in 163 cases, in 135 of which issue was joined and testimony taken, in 14 of which issue was joined but no testi mony taken, and in 14 of which issue was not joined, tbe defendant was discharged and no testimony taken ; and he duly made his docket entries in each and all of said cases, as authorized by sections 828 and 847 of the Bevised Statutes of the United States.
IY. Claimant’s accounts for his fees for keeping said docket were duly verified by oath and presented to the said court in presence of the district attorney, and approved by the court, and an order approving the same, as being in accordance to law-and just, duly entered upon the records of the said court. In said accounts, as approved by the court, he was allowed a , fee of $3 in each case where issue was joined and testimony taken, a fee of $2 in each case where issue was joined but no testimony taken, and $1 where issue was not joined and the defendant was discharged or cause dismissed, amounting in all to $447.
Y. A part of these fees, amounting to $157, accrued prior to August 4, 1886, the remainder after that date.
YI. These accounts were presented to the accounting officers prior to the commencement of this suit, and payment was refused.
Mr. G. G. Lmieaster for the claimant.
Mr. F. P. Dewees (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Hoioard) for the defendants.

Opinion:
Scofield, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court:
The claimant was a commissioner of the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Kentucky from January 12, 1886, to June 30, 1887.
During that time he kept a docket, as required by the court, in which he entered the proceedings in each case. His docket fees amounted to $447. Of this amount $157 accrued prior to August 4, 1886, and the remainder after that date.
The defendants do not dispute the correctness of any of the account, nor do they resist payment of the $157 which accrued prior to August 4, 1886. The remainder, they claim, is cut off by the proviso in the act of August 4, 1886, " making appropriations to supply deficiencies for the fiscal year ending June 30,1886, and for prior years, and for other purposes." (24 Stat. L., 274.) The appropriation and proviso are as follows:
u Fees of commissioners: For fees of commissioners and justices of the peace acting as commissioners, fifty thousand dollars : Provided, That for issuing any warrant or writ and for any other necessary service commissioners may be paid the same compensation as is allowed to clerks for like services; but they shall not be entitled to any docket fees."
April 27, 1885, in the case of Wallace v. The United States (20 C. Cls. R., 273), this court held that a commissioner, under entirely similar circumstances, was entitled to charge docket fees. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court and affirmed. (116 U. S. R., 398.)
As the decision of the Supreme Court was rendered January 18, 1886, it can not be doubted that the attention of Congress had been called to it, and that this proviso was enacted for the purpose of cutting off all such fees, at least for the future. After reciting certain services for which compensation is to be allowed, the act declares that "they (the commissioners) shall not be entitled to any docket fees." The language is plain and positive.
Whether the provision might be construed as retroactive, and if so, what effect should be given to it, is not considered by the court, inasmuch as the defendants concede the claimant's right to recover for fees earned prior to its passage.
Judgment in favor of the claimant will be entered for $157.