
    T. CARLOS JEWETT v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [No. 17009.
    Decided November 14, 1892.]
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    The questions presented hy the ease relate to the fees and compensation of a U. S. commissioner in Alaska.
    I.Under the Alaska, Territorial Act, 17th May, 1884 (23 Stat. L., p. 24, §9), various duties are assigned to commissioners, viz: Those of commissioner, notary, justice of the peace, recorder of deeds, register of the land office, etc. The compensation for the different services is, fees of commissioners, fees of justices in Oregon, fees under the Oregon statutes for recording instruments, and a salary of $1,000.
    II.The intent of the statute is that a commissioner shall receive the fees appropriate to the services performed where fees are authorized, and that his salary shall cover other services.
    III.A commissioner in Alaska is not entitled to fees for services as register of the land office. His salary is his compensation therefor.
    
      The Reporters’ statement of tbe case:
    Tbe following are tbe facts as fonnd by tbe Court:
    I. T. Carlos Jewett was a United States commissioner for tbe district of Alaska, residing at Sitka, from April 24,1889, to October 3,1890. As sneb commissioner be beard and decided on criminal charges against various persons charged with tbe commission of certain acts prohibited as criminal by certain sections of tbe statutes of tbe United States, and charged fees for tbe same at tbe rates prescribed by sections 847 and 828 of tbe Bevised Statutes of United States. Tbe nature of tbe services and amount of fees at said rates are as follows:
    
      
    
    
      
      
    
    Total. 130.25
    Plaintiff from time to time presented, through the United States district attorney, accounts, verified by his affidavit, to the district court of the United States for said district of Alaska, for said fees, and said accounts were approved by said court to the amounts respectively above set forth, and an order entered of record approving the same as being in accordance with law and just.
    II. Plaintiff also heard and decided on other complaints against persons charged with the commission of acts made criminal by the general laws of the State of Oregon. His fees for the same, calculated at the rates prescribed by sections 847 and 828 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, were as follows:
    
      
    
    The fees at the rate aforesaid were also included in his accounts presented from time to time to said district court as aforesaid, aud orders entered in like manner approving his accounts to tbe amounts aforesaid, as being is accordance witb law and just.
    One of tbe accounts approved by tbe court as aforesaid, and containing charges of both tbe kinds referred to in tbe two preceding findings, was presented to tbe accounting officers of tbe Treasury, but was returned with tbe direction that before tbe same could be acted on it must be corrected by charging tbe fees allowed to justices of tbe peace of Oregon for similar services in all cases where tbe prosecutions were under section 7 of tbe organic act aforesaid. (Supp. Rev. Stat., p. 433.)
    III. Plaintiff, as ex officio register of tbe land office, under section 8 of said act of 1884 (Supplement to Rev. Stats., p. 433), performed certain services and charged for tbe same tbe fees prescribed by Sec. 2238 of tbe Revised Statutes, paragraphs 2 and 9, viz, 1 per cent on all moneys received at said land office, and $5 for each application filed for mineral lands, said commissions amounting to $22.30, and said fees on mineral claims amounting to $55, aggregating $77.30. He applied to tbe General Land Office for payment of said fees and commissions, but bis application was" denied, on tbe ground that he was not entitled to the fees and commissions allowed to registers of land offices by tbe general provisions of law on that subject.
    
      Mr. George A. King for tbe claimant.
    
      Mr. James H. Nixon (with whom was Hr. Assistmit Attorney-General Cotton) for tbe defendants.
   Davis, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The United States commissioner at Sitka, Alaska (plaintiff herein), having beard and decided upon complaints against various persons charged with tbe commission of acts criminal under the laws of Oregon, which are made applicable to Alaska by statute, presented to tbe Treasury Department bis fee accounts for these services calculated at the rates prescribed by sections 828 and 847 of tbe Revised Statutes; the accounting officers declined to allow these charges, bolding that the commissioner should charge only tbe fees allowed to justices of the peace of Oregon for similar services. This ruling plaintiff now contests.

The act of Congress presented for construction is that “ providing a civil government for Alaska” (Supp. Rev. Stat., pp. 430-444). The fifth section of this act authorizes the President to appoint four commissioners in the district (one to reside at Sitka), and these commissioners were (by this section) given “ the jurisdiction and powers of commissioners of the United States circuit courts in any part of said district.”

In the same section it is provided that:

“ Such commissioners shall exercise all the duties and powers, civil and criminal, now conferred on justices of the peace under the general laws of the State of Oregon, so far as the saihe may be applicable in said district, and may not be in conflict with this act or the laws of the United States.”

The commissioners were also given jurisdiction in probate matters; they were authorized to grant writs of habeas corpus; they were made notaries public, and as such were required to keep a public record of instruments acknowledged before them relating to the title of property within the district or its transfer; they were by this act directed to keep a record of fines and forfeitures, and the commissioner at Sitka was made (section 8) ex officio register of the land office. By section 7, the general laws of Oregon were declared to be “ the law in said district, so far as the same may be applicable and not in conflict with the provisions of this act or the laws of the United States,” while section 9 thus provided for the commissioners’ compensation:

“Sec. 9. * * * The commissioners shall receive the usual fees of United States commissioners and of justices of the peace for Oregon, and such fees for recording instruments as are allowed by the laws of Oregon for similar serv-ies, and in addition a salary of one thousand dollars each.” * * *

The duties thus imposed upon the Alaska commissioners are manifold; not only do they perform the duties ordinarily incident to the office, but they are also notaries, justices of the peace, in some sort registrars of deeds and surrogates, and they have given them at least one purely judicial power. The variety of duty required a variety of compensation (under the existing fee system), and that compensation is thus divided:

(a) Fees of United States commissioners.

(&) Fees of justices of the peace for Oregon.

(c) Fees under tbe Oregon statutes for recording instruments.

(d) A salary of $1,000.

Tbe intent of Congress, then, was tbat when tbe commissioner performs tbe duties usually, imposed upon a "United States commissioner, e. g., tbe duties springing from a violation of a Federal statute, tbe usual commissioner’s fees (those prescribed in tbe Bevised Statutes) should be charged; but when tbe commissioner acts as a justice of tbe peace, tbat is, when tbe offense is criminal under tbe Oregon statute, tbe fee shall be tbat of tbe Oregon justice. We agree with tbe accounting officers, that wherever tbe prosecutions were for violations of tbe laws of Oregon tbe fees allowed an Oregon justice by tbe Oregon fee bill should be charged. ' 1

Plaintiff also asks fees and commissions (Rev. Stat., 2238, par. 2 and 9) for services as register of tbe land office, but tbe act cited (section 9) prescribes his total compensation after describing all bis duties. After making him a commissioner, a notary, a justice, a recorder of deeds, a land-office register and so on, it concludes by saying tbat be shall be paid commissioner’s fees, justice’s fees, Oregon recording fees, and a salary. Tbe prescription- is clear and leaves nothing for construction. Tbe fees specifically named and tbe salary were deemed by Congress sufficient emolument, so there can be'no recovery upon this item of claim.

Tbe first item of claim (as stated in plaintiff’s request for findings of fact) being fees for violations of United States statutes is allowed.

Tbe third item of claim (i. e., for services as register) is not allowed.

As to tbe second item of claim (i. e., for services in relation to acts made criminal by Oregon statutes), tbe fees of justices of tbe peace for similar services will be allowed. This case therefore is remanded to tbe trial calendar, tbat an additional finding of fact be prepared showing tbe fees to which (following this opinion), plaintiff is entitled in place of those set forth in bis second request.

Peelle, J., did not sit in this case, but agreed in tbe conclusion of tbe court.  