Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/116

108 FEDERAL BBFOBTBB. �dutîes of the office ^re so increased that the court can fairly call it a different office from that originally undertaken. V. S. V. Gaussen, 97 TJ. S. 584. Strong remarks ia support of the general rule as above laid down will be found in the opinions of Clifford, J., in U. S. v. Powell, 14 Wall. 493, of Hunt, J., now of the supreme court, in Beople v. Vilas, 36 N. Y. 465, where he mentions coUectors of customs and of internai revenue, and of Swayne, J., in U. S. v. Singer, 15 Wall, 111. �I have found very few cases in the United States which can be cited in opposition to this rule. I have not fully examined the law of England, but will mention an early case because it is very often cited in this country, and has been misunderstood. Bartlett v. Att'ij Gen., Parker, 277, was de- eided in the exchequer in 1709, and is reported briefly but with mueh precision, as foUows: "Clarke, in 1691, was made collecter of the customs in the port of Boston ; Bartlett and others vrere security for him. In 1698, (10 William III.,) the duties were granted upon coal, etc., which by the statute were to be under the management of the commissioners of the customs, and certain clauses for that purpose in the act. The commissioners gave Clarke a deputation for that purpose and took security. Clarke afterwards died ; the customs were paid ; but on this new coal duty £1,000 remained unpaid, upon which the bond was put in suit against Bartlett, the widow and executrix of Bartlett, the security, and she brought her bill, and the question was whether the bond in which Bart- lett became security extended to this new duty on coals. After adjournment the Barons deliverod their opinions seri- atim, and unanimously held that the bond did not extend to the new duty on coals;" and they granted a perpetuai stay of the action. �I have put one line of the report in Italics in order to point out what I understand to be the actual legal resuit. The new duty does not appear to have been considored a customs duty at ail, though put under the management of the commission- ers of customs. The statute, which I bave examined, (9 and 10 William III., c. 13,) leaves no doubt of this in my mind, and it seems that the commissioners took a new bond under ��� �