: RIGHT OF THE SENECAS TO RETAIN POSSESSION OF THEIR LANDS. The Seneca Indians are entitled to the possession of their hunting-grounds, as well as their cultivated lands, until the time limited by the treaty with them for their voluntary removal. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, March 2, 1841. SIR: I had the honor to receive your letter of the 16th of December, 1840, enclosing several documents from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs relative to the purchase made by Messrs. Ogden and Fellows from the Seneca Indians, under the deed annexed to the treaty of January, 1838, and inquiring whether they are entitled to take immediate possession of the forest lands, although the Indians have not removed to their new homes, and the time allowed for their voluntary removal is unexpired. After carefully considering the argument submitted by Messrs. Ogden and Fellows, and after examining the provisions of the treaty, I have no hesitation in expressing the opinion that the Indians are entitled to the possession of their forest lands, or hunting grounds, as fully as to that of the improved or cultivated spots, and that there is nothing, in a correct construction of the treaty and the deed, (which must be regarded as part of it,) that authorizes us to make a distinction between the two. The papers sent me are herewith returned. Very respectfully, yours, H. D. GILPIN. EFFECT OF ACCEPTANCE OF POSTMASTER GENERAL IN PAYMENT. Where the acceptance of a Postmaster General had been given in payment of an account for work done, and the amount thereof had been recharged by a subsequent Postmaster General-DECIDED, that the amount of the acceptance ought not to be deducted from an account current for other work. Str: I had the honor to receive your letter of this day, relative to the case of Blair & Rives, therein referred to, and inquiring whether the fact of their having been recharged by Mr. Kendall, when Postmaster General, with the amount of certain acceptances of the previous Postmaster General, Mr. Barry, which were given in payment of work done for the department by order of Mr. Barry, and regularly allowed and settled by him, authorizes a deduction of that sum in the account now existing between them and the department. It appears from the documents before me, that the case turns upon the same principle as that submitted to the Supreme Court in the suit between the United States and the Bank of the Metropolis: there an account between Mr. Reeside and the department had been settled on its journals, and similar acceptances given in payment were held by the bank. The court has this day decided that the amount could not be thus : charged; and I have, therefore, no hesitation in saying, that the deductions in regard to which you inquire ought not to be made in the case of Blair & Rives. The papers sent me are herewith returned. Very respectfully, yours, The Hon. JOHN M. NILES, Postmaster General. H. D. GILPIN. PRIORITY OF RIGHT OF UNITED STATES TO PAYMENT. Where a receiver of public moneys at Kalamazoo received in payment for public lands the notes of a specie-paying bank that afterwards suspended specie-payments, and then took from the bank a draft on another bank which was returned dishonored; and a receiver of assets having been appointed under the laws of Michigan, with whom the receiver of public moneys filed a claim for this debt-HELD, that, notwithstanding the acts of the latter, the legal priority of the United States to payment still exists. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, SIR: I had the honor to receive your letter of yesterday, relative to the case of Thomas C. Sheldon, receiver of public moneys at Kalamazoo. It appears that he received $1,500 in bank notes of a specie paying bank of the State of Michigan in payment for public lands, under general in. structions from the Treasury Department, and that afterwards the bank suspended specie payments. He then took from the bank, in lieu of the notes, a draft on another and solvent bank, which draft was returned dishonored. A receiver having been appointed under the laws of Michigan to receive demands against, and divide the assets of, the bank, Mr. Sheldon, without any special authority, however, from the Treasury Department, filed this claim with that receiver. In reply to your inquiry, whether these acts of the receiver of publie moneys have deprived the United States of their priority of payment out of the assets of the insolvent bank, I have to say that, in my opinion, they have not. If that priority of payment exists, as I think it does, no injury accrues to the United States from the receiver having taken the drafts in lieu of the notes. Very respectfully, yours, The Hon. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. H. D. GILPIN. DATE OF OFFICIAL LIABILITY. The liabilities consequent upon a reappointment to an office already held, do not commence until the term commences for which such reappointment is made. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, March 3, 1841. SIR: I had the honor to receive your letter of the 18th of January, 1841, enclosing a communication from the office of the First Comptroller of the Treasury, in which it is stated that William Frick, the collector of the customs at Baltimore, was, on the 15th January, 1841, appointed for the term of four years from the 9th of January, 1841, he being at the time in office under a previous appointment, and inquiring when his liabilities under the last appointment commenced. I am of opinion that they commenced from the 9th of January, 1841, and not at the date of the commission. This opinion renders it unnecessary to answer the other inquiries in the Comptroller's letter. The papers are herewith returned. Very respectfully, yours, The Hon. LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury. H. D. GILPIN. OPINIONS OF JOHN J. CRITTENDEN, OF KENTUCKY: APPOINTED MARCH 5, 1841. FEES OF ATTORNEYS, CLERKS, MARSHALS, &c. The provision for the regulation of the fees and compensation of certain clerks, attorneys, counsellors, and marshals, in the district courts of the United States, contained in the act making appropriations for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the government for the year 1841, was designed to reduce the fees of the federal officers whose compensation by existing laws exceeds $1,500 per year, to the scale of fees allowed by law for similar services in the highest State courts. To give effect to this provision the several officers embraced within it should ascertain, as far as practicable, whether all the fees, emoluments, and receipts of their office, as allowed under anterior laws, will make their entire compensation exceed the sum of $1,500 per annum; and if it be reasonably certain that they will, the officer must be confined in his charges to the rates of fees prescribed by the proviso. If they will not, or if the question be fairly doubtful, the old rule may be adhered to. Clerks are not responsible to the treasury for fees which, after using due diligence, they have failed to collect. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, April 13, 1841. SIR: By your note of the 1st instant, you were pleased to submit to me the letter, under date of the 29th of the last month, of Mr. O. Hoffman, attorney of the United States for the southern district of New York, presenting some questions in relation to the construction of certain provisions in the act of Congress passed the 3d day of March last, and entitled "An act making appropriations for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the government for the year eighteen hundred and forty-one." These questions, on which you desire my opinion, have reference exclusively to that proviso in that act designed to regulate the fees, &c., and to limit the compensation of certain "United States clerks, attorneys, counsel, and marshals, in the district and circuit courts of the United States," &c. In the enactment of this proviso, Congress evidently proceeded upon the assumption that the fees and emoluments heretofore allowed were higher, or greater in amount, than those now allowed by the laws of the several States to their respective officers performing the like services. And it is equally evident that it was the design of this proviso to reduce the fees of the federal officers to the latter and lower scale or rate in all the districts where the former scale or rate of fees would produce a compensation exceeding the sum of $1,500 per annum. So far, the language and purpose of the act are supposed to be clear and explicit. The difficulties that have been suggested are in the practical application of the act to those instances where it may be doubtful whether the prior and higher rate or scale of fees will produce a sum or compensation exceeding $1,500 per annum; and, in respect to these doubtful instances, the proviso furnishes no express rule for the government of its officers, and they are |