shall, upon receipt of information of the departure of any vessel, goods,
or passengers from infected places to any port in the United States,
immediately notify the proper State or municipal and United States
officer or officers at the threatened port of destination of the vessel, and
shall prepare and transmit to the medical officers of the Marine- Hospital
Seryice, to collectors of customs, and to the State and municipal health
authorities in the United States, weekly abstracts of the consular sani-
tary reports and other pertinent information received by him.

Seo. 5. That wherever, at any port of the United States, any State
or municipal quarantine system may now, or may hereafter exist, the
officers or agents of such system shall, upon the application of the re-
spective State or municipal authorities, be authorized and empowered
to act as officers or agents of the national quarantine system, and shall
be clothed with all the powers of United States officers for quarantine
purposes, but shall receive no pay or emoluments fix>m the United
States. At all other x>orts where, in the opinion of the Secretary of the
Treasury, it shall *be deemed necessary to establish quarantine, the medi-
cal officers or other agents of the Marine-Hospital Service shaJl perform
such duties in the enforcement of the quarantine rules and regulations
as may be assigned them by the Surgeon-Oeneral of that service under
this act: Provided, That there shall be no interference in any manner
with any quarantine laws or regnlations as they now exist or may here-
after be adopted under State laws.

Sec. 6. That all acts or parts of acts inconsistent with this act be, and
the same are hereby, repealed.

Approved, April 29, 1878.^»

* Under this act the following ciroulars were iBsned :

"REGULATIONS TO PREVENT THE INTRODUCTION OP THE PLAGUE INTO THE UNITED

STATES.

1879.— Department No. 84.— Marime-Hoepital Service.— No. 1, Series 1879.

Treasury Department,
Office of the Surgeon-General U. 8. Marine-Hospital Service,

WaaAington, D, C, March 3, 1879.
To offieera of the Customs Revenue, Medical Officers of the Marine-Hospital Sermce, and others

whom it may concern :
The act approved April 29. 1878, entitled *An actio prevent the introdaction of con-
tagious or infections diseases into the United States,' provides that no vessel coming
from any foreign port or country where any contagions or infections disease exists,
nor any vessel conveying infected merchandise, shall enter any port of the United
States or pass the l)oundary line between the United States and any foreign country
except in such manner as may be prescribed under said act.

Attention has been called to the prevalence of a dangerous epidemic disease in
Southern Russia, known as the 'plague,' and its extremely virulent and contagious
oh&racter, as manifested in the late outbreak, leaves no doubt that it is similar to, if
not identical with, the plague which devastated the old world in past centuries.

Because, therefore, of the danger which attaches to rags, furs, &c., as carriers of in-
fection, tbe following regulations are framed, under the direction of the Secretary of



ligitized by VjOOQIC



Digiti



438 First Comptroller's Office^ Treasury Department

^^An act to prevent the introductiou of contagious or infectious dis-
eases into the United States^^ approved June 2, 1879 (21 Stat., ch. 11,
5-7), contains various provisions with sections added as follow:

" Sbc. 9. That so much of the act entitled *An act to prevent the intro-
duction of contagious or infectious diseases into the United States,'
approved April twenty-ninth, eighteen hundred and seven ty-eight, ad
requires consular officers or other representatives of the United States
at foreign ports to report the sanitary*' condition of and the departure of
vessels from such ports to the Supervising Surgeon-General of the
> Marine Hospital Service ; and so much of said act as requires the Sur-
geon-General of the Marine Hospital Service to frame rules and regula-
tions, and to execute said act, and to give notice to Federal and State
officers of the approach of infected vessels, and furnish said officers with
weekly abstracts of consular sanitary reports, and all other acts and
parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act be, and the same
are hereby, repealed.

Sec. 10. This act shall not continue in force for a longer period than
four years from the date of its approval."

July 27» 1883, questions were presented to the Honorable Charles J.
Folger, Secretary of the Treasury — whether, at the date when the last
named act of June 2, 1879 (21 Stat., ch. 11, 5-7), ceased to be in force-
June 2, 1883— the provisions of the prior act of April 29, 1878 (20 Stat.,
ch. 66, 37), purporting to have been repealed by section 9 of said act of
June 2, 1879, then revived^ and so are now in force ; and, if so, what ac-
tion should be taken under said act of April 29, 1878 f The Secretary
decided that the act of April 29, 1878, did revive, June 2, 1883, and is

the Treasury, and sabject to the approval of the President, for the protection of the
health of the people of the United States against the danger referred to:

Until further orders, no vessel from any port of the Black Sea, or the Sea of Azof,
oouveying any ra^, fnrs, skins, hair, feathers, boxed or baled clothing or bedding,
or aoy similar articles liable to convey infection, nor any vessel from any port of the
Mediterranean or Red Seas having on board such articles coming from Sonthern Russia,
shall enter any port of the Unit^ States until such articles shall have been removed
from the vessel to open lighters, or to some isolated locality, and the vessel disinfected
and thoroughly ventilated; and the snspeoted articles shall be disinfected, either by
chemical agents and eznosure to free currents of air, or by burning, as shall be deter-
mined in each case by the Surgeon-General of the Marine-Hospital Service.

The certificate of the State or municipal quarantine officer of health may be accepted
as satisfactory evidence of compliance with these regulations on the part of the vessel.

JNO. M. WOODVTORTH,
Surgeon-General U, 8. Marine-Hoepital Service,^*
Approved :

R. B. Hayes.

" Circular,

PREVENTION OF THE INTRODUCTION OF CONTAGIOUS DISEASES, AC.
1879.— Department 'So. 41.— Secretar}''s Office.

Treasury Department,
Washingtony 2). C, March 10, 1879.
To Collectors of Customs and others :

The following instructions were contained in a circular, dated the 3d instant, pre-
pared under the direction of the Secretary, signed by the Surgeon-General of the
Marine- Hospital Service, and approved by the President:

[Here follow the provisions of the circular, ^Department No. 34,' immediately pre-
ceding, with this addition.]

The act ap]>roved April 1^, 1878, provides that the Surgeon-General of the Marine-
Hospital Service shall, under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, have

Digitized by VjOOQIC



Effect of Expiration of Repealing Lata Act — Revival Case. 439

now in force ; and he accordingly sent the following telegram to the col-
lector of customs at Boston :

"Tbbasubt Department,

Washington, July 27, 1883.
Sib : Because of the expiration by limitation of the act of June 2,
1879 (chap, 11, 21 Stat), I conceive that chap. 66, act of April 29, 1878, is
again in force, and the regulations by circular dated March 3, 1879 (Dept.
I^o. 34), are again promulgated. A telegram from Liverpool * informs
me that the steamer Bavariansailed Wednesday for Boston, having 155
bales of Egyptian rags in her cargo. You will enforce the law and regu-
lations against her from the mildest to the severest, as occasion shall
demand, reporting from time to time by telegram or letter as you shall
find it necessary to proceed from one degree to another of severity.

C. J. FOLGER,

Secretary Treasury, ^

After this telegram was sent, an authoritative statement was given
to the press by Secretary Folger, declaring that the law of 1878, pro-
Tiding against the entry of rags or articles believed to be infected with
cholera or yellow fever, revived and was in force, a^ follows : —

"The Secretary of the Treasury has been somewhat puzzled as to
what to do in view of the approach of infectious diseases by sea. By
chapter Q^ of the laws of 1878 the entry of vessels from infected ports
was forbidden or restrained, and the Surgeon-General of the Marine-
Hospital Service was empowered under the direction of the Secretary

charge of the execution of the provisions of the statute, and shall frame all needful
rales and regalations for that purpose, not conflicting with or impairing any sanitary
or quarantine law or regulation of any State or municipal authority now existing, or
which may hereafter he enacted.

Collectors and other officers of the customs are herehy directed to ohserve the in-
structions contained in said circular.
By order:

H. F. FRENCH,
Assistant Secretary,'*

** CIBCULAB REVOKING THB REGULATIONS OF MARCH 3, 1879, TO PREVENT THE INTRO
DUCTION OF THE 'PLAGUE' INTO THE UNITED STATES.

1879.— Department N'o. 88.— Marine-Hoepital Service. -N'o. 3, Series 1870.

Treasury Department,

OlTFICE OF THE SUROEON- GENERAL U. 8. MaRINR-HOSPITAL SERVICE,

Washington, I). C, May 31, 1879.
To Medical Officers of the Marine- Hospital Service, and others whom it may concern:

Official information having been received to the effect that the 'plague/ which ex-
isted in Southern Russia, is now almost extinct, the regulations issued March 3, 1879,
imposing certain restrictions upon the importation of rags, etc., into the United States,
jure hereby revoked.

By order of the Secretary of the Treasury :

J. B. HAMILTON,
Surgeon-Oeneral United States Marine- Hospital Service,
Approved:

R. B. Hayes."
* The dispatch referred to was one from United States Consul Packard at Liverpool.



Digitized by VjOOQIC



440 First Oomptroller^s Offloey Treasury DepartmenU

to make regulations therefor. At that time the Russian plague was
imminent. Regulations were made which directed quarantine isolation
of infectious freight, disinfection, ventilation, and even burning thereof
if necessary. By an act in 1879, chapter 11, the National Board of
Health was substituted for the Surgeon-General of the Marine-Hospital
Service, and the act of 1878, so far as it gave power to that officer,
was repealed. But the act of 1879, by its own terms, was limited in
existence to four years, which term expired in June of this year [1883]*
The query in the Secretary's mind was: Did the expiration of the act of
1879 i-evive the act of 1878 ! The general rule of common law is, that
the repeal of the repealing act revives the ace which the repealing act
repealed. The question then arose, as to whether the expiration of a
repealing act by its own limitation does not do the same. It was sug-
gested by Lord Ellenborough, in the case of Warren against Windle [5
East, 205], that it does not. In FGollins v. Smith] 6 Wharton (page 294)^
Chief Justice Gibson, of Pennsylvania, criticisea that decision, and de-
clared that it does. Judge Hopkinson [United States v. Twenty-five
cases of cloths. &c.] (Crabbe's Reports) [356, 382] charged a jury that it
does not. Bisnop, in. ''Written Laws^ (page 187), relying on the case
in Orabbe, writes that it does not Hardcastle [Statutory Law, 221]
writes that it depends upon the legislative intention, and cites the cases
of Warren against Wiudle [3 East, 205] and Bex against Sogers [10 ISLy
5661. In this confusion of the law, Secretary Folger says, he has con-
cluded that Congress could not have meant that the beneficial provis-
ions of the acts of 1878 and 1879, which are almost the same, except in
the designation of the officers to execute them, should lapse entirely*
He holds, that the repeal of the act of 1878 by the act of 1879 was but
a limited repeal, and that the expiration of the act of 1879 by its own
terms has revived the act of 1878. He has, therefore, determined, that
the Surgeon-General of the Marine-Hospital Service may again issue
the regulations in question, and that customs officers shall be instructed
to carry them out with due discretion and caution in the use of the
measures of severity."

Trbasubt Department,

First Comptroller's Office^ July 30, 1883.

Note by thk First Comptrollkr.— The action taken by the honorable Seoretary
of the Treasury very properly recognizes the act of April 29, 1678 (20 Stat., 37), a»
'' again in force." It is somewhat remarkable, that the question decided in reaching^
this conclusion has not more frequently arisen in the courts. The Judicial decisions
on this subject are quite limited in number.

In Potter's Dwarris on Statutes (page 159), it is said :

'* If a statute, before perpetual, be continued by an affirmative statute for a limited
time, this does not amount to a repeal thereof at the end of that time [Kaym. 397].
But i contra where a statute professes to repeal absolutely a prior law, and substitutes
other provisions on the same subject, which are limited to continue only till a certain
time, the prior law does not revive after the repealing statute is spent, unless the in-
tention of the legislature to that effect is expressed [Warren v. Windle, 3 East, 206].''^

Bishop, in his work on the Written Laws (page 187), says:

'^ Where a repealing statute expires of its own limitation, the repealed law doea
not revive [United States t?. Twenty-five cases of cloths, &c., Crabbe, 356, 3821."
See Hardcastle, Statutory Law, 221 ; Rex v, Rogers, 10 East, 566; Warren r. Windle,
3 /(f, 205; Pottei-'s Dwarris, Statutes, 159.

A different rule is laid down and argued with much ability by Chief Justice Gibson
in Collins v. Smith (6 Wharton, 294, 297). The syllabus of this case is as follows:

*' 1. The expiration of a statute by its own limitation, ipso facto revives a statute
which had been repealed and supplied by it.



Digitized by VjOOQIC



Effect of Expiration of Repealing Law Act — Revival Case. 441

2. The act of the 19th of March, 1810, forbidding uniacorporated banks to iaeae their
notes, discount paper, &c., which was repealed by the act of the 21st of March, 1814,
revived, on the expiration of the period of eleven years, to which the last mentioned
act was limited."

And in the opinion of the conrt it is said :

*' It is an admitted mle of the common law, that the repeal of a repealing statute
revives the original. But in Warren r. WindlQ (3 £ast, 211), Lord EUenharaugh sng-
gested — f»r notwithstanding the synopsis of the case, and the quotation of it by text
writers and compilers, it wiis not decided— that there may be a difference betwixt the
repeal of a repealing act, and the expiration of it, when 'though temporary in some
of its provisions, it may have a jiermancnt operation in other respects. The statute
26, G. 3,' said he, * professes to repeal the statute 19, G. 2, absolutely, though its own
provisions which it substituted in the place of it, were only temporary.' It he meant
by this that there may be a pennanent repeal of provisions which are at the same
time but temporarily supplied — in other words, that parts of a statute may be tem-
porary, while other parts of it are perpetual — I adroit it. A statnte may be rex>ealed
without being supplied at all ; and the providing of a temporary substitute does not
necessarily make the repealing statute also temporary. That, however, is not the
attribute of the statute before us; for every enactment, branch, and clause of it, was
to cease at the time appointed. But if Lord Ellenhwrough meant to be understood
that every present repeal is necessarily- a permanent one, though declared by a tem-
porary act, or that a statute may continue to operate as a repeal after it is itself de-
innct, he assumed what cannot be granted. I have found nothing like a decision or
dictnm to snpport his suggestion ; and there seems to be as little foundation for it in
reason. The common law is not essentially imperishable, nor does it possess more
inherent power of self-resuscitation than does a statnte. Sir Matthew Male thought
that many things which now obtain as common law, had their origin in parliamentary
acts or constitutions made in writing by the King, Lords and Commons, though those
acts are either not now extant, or, if extant, were made before the time of memory.
However that may be, the common law may certainly be repealed and supplied as a
atatute may ; and were it done by a statute of limited duration, it could scarce be
maintained that the common law w ould not revive as soon as the statute were spent.''

Sedgwick (Construction Stat, and Const. L., 2d ed., 107) says:

'' Questions may arise as to whether a repealing act is to operate as a t^tal, partial,
or temporary repeal ; and it is said that the word repealed is not to be taken in an
absolute, if it appear on the whole act to be nsed in a limited sense [Rex v. Rogers,
10 £aBt, 5^; Camden r. Anderson, 6 Term Repts., 7231. If a statnte, originally
perpetual, be continued by an affirmative statute for a limited time, this does not
amount to a repeal of it at the end of that time [Raym., 397]. But when a statute
abeolntely repeals a prior law, and substitutes other provisions, to continue only for a
limited time, the prior law does not revive at the expiration of the time fixed by the
repealing law [Warren v. Windle, 3 East, 205]."

In Hardcastle on Statutory Law (page 221), it is said:

" If the Act which repeahi a prior Act is itself only a temporary Act, the general
mle is that the prior law is revived after the temporary Act is spent. This however
will not be so if it was clearly the Intention of the legislature to repeal the prior Act
absolutely. Thus, in Warren v. Windle, 3 East, 205, it was argued that the tempo-
rary Act 26 Geo. III. c. 8, which repealed 19 Geo. II. having itself expired, the 19
Geo. II. revived; but, said Lonl Ellen borough, 'that would not necessarily follow, for
a law, though temporary in its provisions, may have a permanent operation in
other respects.

The 26 Geo. III. c. 108, professes to repeal 19 Geo. II. c. 25, absolutely, though its own
provisions, which it substituted in the place of it, were to be only temporary.^

But when, on the authority of JFarren v. Windle^ it was argued in It. v. Rogers, 10
£a8t, 573, that certain parts of 42 Geo. III. c. 3H, having been repealed by the tempo-
rary Act of 46 Geo. III. c. 139, did not revive upon the expiration of the tempoiary
Act, Lord EUenborough said as follows: 'It is a question of construction upon every
Act, professing to repeal or interfere with the provisions of a formt^r law, whether it
operate as a total or partial and temporary repeal. Here the question is whether the
provision of 42 Geo. III. which was originally perpetual, be entirely repealed by the
46 Geo. III. or only repealed for a limited time. The last act recites indeed that cer-
tain proviKionsof the former one should be repealed!, but this word is not to be taken
in an absolute sense, if it appear upon the whole act to be used in a limited sense.'"

The Revised Statutes of the United States contain the following:

'^Sec. 12. Whenever an act is repealed, which repealed a former act, such former
act shall not thereby be revived, unless it shall be expressly so provided.''

This section of ths Revised Sta'utes changes the common-law rule. Being in der«
ogation of the common law, it is not to be extended beyond the fair aud necessary



.gle



442 First Comptroller's Office^ Trensury Department.

import of its langaa^ (Bishop, Written Laws, 119, 155). It does not extend, nor
apply, to an act which expires by its own limitation.

When a repealing act expires by its own limitation, it cannot be said to be '^ re-
pealed " within the meaning of section 12 of the Revised Statutes. This section,
therefore, has no application to the acts of April 29, 1878, and Jnne 2, 1879. The effect
of the expiration of the act of June 2,, 1879, is left to be controlled (1) by the legisla-
tive intent, ascertained by the nsnal rules of constrnotion, and (2) by common-law
principles, so far as they are not modified by the circumstances showing a different
legislative-intent. Common-law principles unaffected by snch circumstances gener-
ally give to the expiration of a repealing act the force which the common law assigns
to an express repeal of such repealing act. And the acts of April 29, 1878, and Jane
2, 1879, when read and considered together in connection with the purposes appar-
ent therein, sufficiently show a legislative intent to revive the provisions of the act of
April 29, 1878, temporarily suspended by the act of June 2, 1879. Many of the unre-
pealed provisions of the act of April 29, 1878 require for their operative effect the
agencies and powers found either in the suspended provisions thereof, or in the act
of June 2, 1879. And, it is wholly inadmissible to conceive that Congress intended
that the main purposes provided for in the act of April 29, 1878, which were not sus-
pended or changed, should be, either inefficient, or practically inoperative, as they
would be, if, both the suspended provisions of this act of April 29, 1878, and the pro-
visions of the act of June 2, 1879, all permanently ceased to be operative.



IN THE MATTER OF THE RIGHT OF A CHIEF SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
TO PER DIEM COMPENSATION.— CHIEF SUPERVISOR'S COMPENSATION
CASE.



1. A Chief Supervisor of Elections is not entitled to any per diem compensation.

In the examination and certification of the accounts of Chief Super-
visors of Elections, the question is presented "to the First Comptroller
for his decision thereon" (Bev. Stat., 269, 277) — whether a Chief Super-
visor of Elections is entitled to per diem compensation.

0. O. Lancaster J in support of the claim for j?^ diem compenBation, sab-
mitted an argument as follows :

Section 2031 Revised Statutes provides, that "there shall be allowed
and paid to each supervisor of election, • • • who is appoin ted aud
performs his duty • • •, compensation at the rate of five dollars per
day for each day he is actually on duty, not exceeding ten days." Sec-
tion 2025 provides for the appointment of Chief Supervisors of elections,
and section 2026 [2012] provides for the appointment of Supervisors of
election under the supervision of the Chief Supervisors.

By this law the Chief Supervisor is clearly entitled as a Supervisor
of elections to the per diem allowed Supervisors. There is nothing in
section 2031 to forbid this allowance. The compensation allowed the
Chief Supervisor for certain services does not preclude his bein^ paid
the per diem allowed Supervisors, for he is per se a Supervisor ; indeed
the chief.

The duties pertaining to the office of the Chief Supervisor are very
responsible and onerous, and involve a judgment and discrimination be-
yond mediocrity. The person selected and fitted for such an ofiSce is
entitled to the fees which properly come within the tariff of compensation
provided for the office of Supervisor. {In re Conrad, Federal Reporter,
Vol. XV, No. 9).



Digitized by VjOOQ IC



Per diem Oompensation — Ohvef Supervisor' f^ Compensation Ca^e, 443

Decision by William Lawrence, First Oomptroller.

Section 2025 of the Revised Statutes provides that:

"The circnit courts of the United States for each judicial circuit shall
name and appoint, on or before the first day of May, in the year
eighteen hnndred and seventy-one, and thereafter as vacancies may
from any cause arise, /rowi among the eircuit court commissioners for each
Judicial district in each judicial circuit, one of such officers, who shall
be known tor tiie duties required of him under this Title as the Chief
Supervisor of elections of the judicial district for which he is a com-
missioner, and shall, so long as faithful and capable, discharge the
duties in this Title imposed."

Under this section, Chief Supervisors of Elections must be appointed
**£rom among the circuit court commissioners.'^ The office of Chief Su-
pervisor is dependent, therefore, upon an anterior and existing appoint-
ment as commissioner of the circnit court.

A Chief Supervisor is not appointed for a day, a week, or a month ;
but, as the statute says, " shall, so long ais faithful and capable, dis-
charge the duties in this Title imposed."

Section 2031 of the Revised Statutes provides as follows :

" There shall be allowed and paid to the chief supervisor^ for his serv-
ices as such officer J the following compensation, apart from and in ex-