In re Accounts of the Shipping Com'r of Port of New York

21 F. Cas. 1318, 16 Blatchf. 92, 1879 U.S. App. LEXIS 2087
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
DecidedMarch 24, 1879
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 21 F. Cas. 1318 (In re Accounts of the Shipping Com'r of Port of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Accounts of the Shipping Com'r of Port of New York, 21 F. Cas. 1318, 16 Blatchf. 92, 1879 U.S. App. LEXIS 2087 (circtsdny 1879).

Opinion

BLATCHFORD, Circuit Judge.

The items and principles of the accounts of the shipping commissioner, in regard to expenses, for the years 1872, 1S73, 1874. and 1S75, were examined and approved by the master to whom such accounts were referred, and his report thereon was confirmed, on notice to the United States attorney, by an order made by Judge Johnson on the 9th of January, 1S77, and said order authorized the shipping commissioner to charge, as against the fees received in his office, the expenses set forth in said report as expenses of his office. The United States attorney filed no exceptions to such report. That report showed that Deputy C. D. Duncan received $1,000 salary for 21 weeks in 1872, $3,500 salary for the year 1873, $3.900 salary for the year 3S74, anil $4.000 salary for the year 1S75; that Deputy G. F. Duncan received $645 salary for 21 weeks in 1S72, $3.000 salary for the year 1878, $3,900 salary for the year 1874. and $4,000 salary for the year 1S75; and that Deputy F. C. Duncan received $900 salary in the year 1873, $3,900 salary for the year 1874, and $4.000 salary for the year 1875. In regard to those salaries, the shipping commissioner stated, under oath, before the master. November 1, 1876, as follows: “The salaries paid to my deputies were the result of an understanding with Judge Woodruff. There is no fund but the fees of this office, out of which its expenses can be paid. The amount of that fund yearly is uncertain and irregular, while certain of the office expenses, such as commissioner's salary, rent, salaries of the clerks and outdoor men, are necessarily fixed, and should be paid. It was, there-[1319]*1319tore, arranged with all the deputies, that, after paying all such fixed expenses, the balance of fees should be apportioned among them, not, however, to exceed $4,000 for any one year. By this arrangement, the deputies, in engaging for each year, have never known what their salary would amount to until the year ended, and they have received, in this way, salaries varying from $2.400 to $4,000. This year,” that is, 1876, "the business of the office has been very much below that of any previous year. So far, my sons have had to be content with sums, or pay,” for 1870, “averaging a rate of $1,400 each per year, and Mr. Pentz with $200 per month, or at the rate of $2,400 per year. I have graded them according to their necessities. Their duties were about equal, and, in doing even this, I have had to give up about $1.500 oi my own salary. There is no means of knowing what the remaining two months of the year will do to improve our finances, but this is the situation at the end of ten months already passed.” Mr. Pentz. referred to, was chief deputy, and received in 1872, 1878. 1874, and 1875, the same salaries as C. D. Duncan. There was another deputy. Mr. Jenks. who received in 1872 tfor 21 weeks) $1,000 salary; in 1S73, $1,322.52 salary; and in 1874 (for 49 weeks), $1,225 salary. There was another deputy, Mr. Kingsbury, who received, in 1872 (for 21 weeks), $1,000 salary. There was another deputy, H. E. Duncan, who received, in 1873, $3,000 salary; in 1874. $3,900 salary; and in 1875, $4,000 salary. There were thus, in all, 5 deputies in 1872; 6 in 1873: 6 in 1874; and 5 in 1875. In 1872, the salaries to deputies (for 21 weeks) were $4,645; in 1873, $15,222.52; in 1874, $20,725; and in 1875, $20,000. There was also a bookkeeper, who received, in 1872 (for 21 weeks), $525 salary, in 1873, $1,350 salary; in 1874, $1,375 salary; and in 1875, $1,325 salary. There were, in 1872, 6 clerks, who received (for 21 weeks) $2,559 salary; in 1873, 7 clerks, who received $4,948.52 salary; in 1874, 12 clerks, who received $9,688 salary; and in 1875. 10 clerks, who received $8.372.66 salary. There were, in 1872, 12 outdoor officers, who received (for 21 weeks) $3,965.60 salary; in 1S73, 10 outdoor officers, who received $5,-559 salary: in 1874, 6 outdoor officers, who received $4,798 salary; and in 1875, 6 outdoor officers, who received $5,274.50 salan-. There was, in 1872. one watchman who received $10 salary. There were in 1S72, one messenger, who received $99 salary; in 1S73, 2 messengers, who received $9S salary; in 1874, 2 messengers, who received $374 salary; and in 1875, 2 messengers, who received $671 salary. There were in 1S72, one boy, who received $3 salary; in 1S73, one boy, who received $2 salary; in 1874, one boy, who received $59 salary; and in 1S75. one boy, who received $29 salary. The commissioner himself appears to have had. as salary, in 1S72, $2,500; in 1873, $5.000; in 1874, $5.000; and in 1875, $5,000. In 1S72, the receipts were $20,303.50, and' the expenses $20,900.50, creating a deficiency of $657. In 1873,-the receipts . were $37,765.15, and the expenses (including said $657) were $39,191.25, creating a deficiency of $1,426.10. In 1874, the receipts were $54,826, and the expenses (including said $1,426.10) were $54,699.88, leaving a surplus of $126.12. In 1S75, the receipts (including said $120.12) were $51,301.12, and the expenses $51,794.54, creating a deficiency of $433.42. The order of January 9, 1877, must be regarded as sanctioning the charge of the foregoing expenses against the fees, and the principle set forth as to the fixed expenses and the salaries of the deputies. and the propriety of paying a deficiency of one year out of a surplus of a succeeding year. It is, of course, always open to the district attorney to show that any particular expenses or salaries are too large, If he raises the point at a proper time and in a proper manner.

The shipping commissioner filed, on the 11th of January, 1877, his detailed report of receipts and expenditures for the year 1876. It showed the receipts for the year 1876 to have been $30,576.25, and the expenses (including the said deficiency of $433.42 at the end of 1875) to have been $31,149.03. leaving a deficiency, at the end of 1S76, of $572.78. The salaries paid in 1876 were as follows: C. C. Duncan, commissioner, $4,275.51; John H. Pentz, deputy, $2,450; C. D. Duncan, deputy, $2,450; F. C. Duncan, deputy, $2,450; G. F. Duncan, deputy, $2,450; II. E. Duncan, deputy, $1,100; one bookkeeper, $1,300; 6 clerks, $2.274.32 ; 7 outdoor officers, $2,631; one messenger, $170; and four boys, $293. The master to whom it was referred to examine said account and reiwrt in reference thereto, reported, in his report filed February 14. 1877, that he had been attended by the shipping commissioner and the district attorney, and had examined the shipping commissioner under oath, respecting said accounts, and had carefully investigated their details, and had examined the vouchers, 472 in number, for the items of expenditure, and had passed said account, leaving said debit of $572.78. No order has ever been made confirming said report, or acting thereon, nor has the district attorney filed any exception thereto.

The shipping commissioner filed, early in 1S78. his detailed report of receipts and expenditures for the year 1877. It showed the receipts for the year 1877 to have been $28.-650.25, and the expenses (including the said deficiency of $572.7S, at the end of 1876) to have been $28.S70.5S. leaving a deficiency, at the end of 1877, of $220.33. The salaries paid in 1877 were as follows: C. O. Duncan, commissioner, $5,000; F. G. Duncan, deputy, $3.SOO; G. F. Duncan, deputy, $3.800; John H. Pentz, deputy, $1,400; C. D. Duncan, deputy, $1.900; one bookkeeper. $1.360; 4 clerks, $2,-5S7.50; 5 outdoor officers 82.258.50: one engineer and messenger, $155; and 3 boys $298. [1320]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re Accounts of Shipping Commissioner
85 F. 683 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1884)
In re Accounts of the Shipping Commissioner
17 F. 138 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1883)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 F. Cas. 1318, 16 Blatchf. 92, 1879 U.S. App. LEXIS 2087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-accounts-of-the-shipping-comr-of-port-of-new-york-circtsdny-1879.