This was known to the district judge when he examined and certified tile accounts. and his accounts so made out. to July. 1884. were examined and adjusted by the accounting officers of the Treasury. Under a rule made by the district court in 1855 the clerk had charged and received $3 as a gross sum for examining. in advance of their presentation to the court. the application papers and reporting to the court whether they werein conformity with law. andhad made no division for specific services according to any items of the fee bill in paragraph 823 et seq. of the Revised Statutes. In a suit brought in December. 1884. on the official bond of the clerk against him and his surety. to recover the amount of the naturalization fees : Hchl. (1) the rovlsion in section 823. taken from section 1 of the act of February 26. 1853 (c. 80. 10 Stat.. 161). that the fees to clerks shall be "taxed and allowed." applies. prima facie. to taxable fees and costs in ordinary suits between party and party prosecuted in a court . and there is no specification of naturalization matters in the fees of clerks. (2) The statute being of doubtful construction as to what fees were to be returned. the interpretation of it by judges. heads of departments. and accounting officers. contemporaneous and continuous. was one on which the obligors in the bond has a right to rely. and. it not being clearly erroneous. it will not now be overturned. It is easy to differentiate the proceedings here from that case. Let me name a few of the salient features involved in the controversy here.
Keywords matched
naturalization