Speech #580088598

United States v. Graham. 110 U. S.. 219.) It was stated at the bar that a bill was Introduced in the last Congress to require the clerks to make returns of all fees which they should receive for naturalizations and as masters and commissioners. but failed to become a law. If a change in the practice should be thought desirable. it Is obvious that it should be made by Congress and not by the courts. "It is also to be noticed as significant that the clerks of the courts of Massachusetts. under a fee bill much like ours. and a statute requiring them to make to the county treasurer yearly a return of all fees received by them for their official acts and services. were never required to Include In their returns the fees received In naturalization cases. (Rev. Stat. of 1836. chapter 88. sec. 15. Gen. Stat. of 1860. chapter 121. see. 22.) This was changed by the act of 1879 (chapter 300). which defined what the fees in such cases should be. and directed the clerks to include them in their return. "The decision of the court is that. upon the agreed facts in this case. this action can not be maintained." Viewing the whole subject in the light In which it appears on the face of the statute. In regard to the fees of the clerks. we are met by the fact that section 823 of the Revised Statutes. taken from section 1 of the act of February 26. 1853 (chapter 80. 10 Stat.. 161). provides that " the following and no other compensation shall be taxed and allowed "to clerks of the district courts. - This applies prima facie to taxable fees and costs in ordinary suits between party and party. prosecuted in a court. There Is no specification of naturalization matters in the fees of clerks. From asearly as December. 1839. the practice set forth in the agreed statement of facts has been obtained in the district court in Massachusetts of charging the fees of $1 and $2 as gross sums. in naturalization proceedings. without any divisionfor specific services. according to any item of the fee bill. The act of Iarch 3. 1841. before referred to. the first one on the subject of returns. implied that there should be reports of "fees and emoluments " by the clerk to the Secretary of the Treasury. The act of May 18. 1842. provided for semiannual returns to that officer. and included. specifically. fees and emoluments tnder the bankrupt act. but the clerk never has included in these returns his fees and emoluments for naturalization proceedings. and his action from 1842 to and including 1884 has been with the knowledge of the successive district judges. to whom his accounts have been semiannually exhibited. From 1842 to 1849 these accounts went to the Secretary of the Treasury. from 1849 to 1870 to the Secretary of the Interior. and since 1870 they have gone to the AttorneyGeneral. From 1856 the statute has required that these accounts before going forward " shall be examined and certified by the district judge." and that after being sent to the several heads of departments they shall be subject to levision on their merits by the accounting officer of the Treasury Department. The agreed statement of facts shows that this course has been pursued. that tbe district judge has examined and certified the accounts. knowing that they did not include naturalization fees. and that those accounts had been revised on their merits by these accounting officers for this long series of years. and been examined and adjusted by them with the naturalization fees not included. With this long practice. amounting to a contemporaneous and continuous construction of the statute. in a case where it is doubtful whether the statute requires a return of the disputed fees. judges of eminence. heads of departments. and accounting officers of the Treasury having concurred in an interpretation in which those concerns have confided. the surety and the present bond. as well as lils principal. had a right to rely on that interpretation in giving the bond. and the semiannual accounts of the principal having been actually examined and adjusted at the Treasury. with the naturalization fees excluded. down to and including the one last rendered five months before this suit was brought. a court seeking to administer justice would long hesitate before permitting the United States to go back. and not only as against the clerk. but as against the surety on his bond. reopen what had been settled with such abundant and formal sanctionThis principle has been applied. as a wholesome one. for the establishment and enforcement of justice. in many cases In this court. not only between man and man. but between the Government and those who deal with it. and put ftiith In the action of its constituted authorities. judicial. executive. and administrative. In Edwardss Lessee v. Darby (12 Wheat. 206. 210) is was said: "In the constrtction of a doubtful and ambiguous law. the contemporaneous construction of those who were called upon to act under the law. and were appointed to carry its provisions into effect. is entitled to very greit respect." To the same effect are United States v.