To that. in the case that came before the Supreme Court. was the oath of the clerk and the certificate of the judge. There was not one word in the statute which cast any doubt upon its affirmative character of requiring fees and emoluments of every kind to be returned. But it so happened that the fee bill of 1853. as incorporated in the Revised Statiutes.-and every lawyer who has practiced in the Federal courts is familiar with the fee bill of 1853did not include in it any reference whatever to the fees for naturalization. and although the statute which required the clerk to make his returns made no exception of any kind. the Supreme Court incorporated that exception into the statute beause. as it said. that contemporary construction had been put upon it by the judge when he passed on the accounts and when the executive officers of the Treasury did afterwards. Further than that. and aptly. in the case of Follett v. Fitch (145 New York Rep..
Keywords matched
naturalization