In re Accounts of the Shipping Com'r of Port of New York
Opinion of the Court
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-
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.
On the Oth of March, 1878, the United States, by the district attorney, filed exceptions to said report filed February 20, 1878, to the effect, that, upon said deposition of the shipping commissioner, the master should have reported that the salaries paid to the three deputy commissioned. F. C. Duncan, G. F. Duncan and C. D. Duncan, at the rate of $3,800 per year each, were entirely too large for the work performed by them; that the item of $572.78, deficiency at the end of 1S70, should not have been allowed as a charge against the receipts of 1877; that it appears, from said deposition, that the deputy shipping commissioners’ duties at the port of New Xork consist only of shipping and discharging sailors; that there was but one person apprenticed to sea service during 1S77; that the power of the shipping commissioner to employ clerks, granted to him by § 4505 of the Revised Statutes, does not authorize the appointment of deputy commissioners; that it appears from the accounts of said shipping commissioner on the files of this court, that the receipts of said shipping commissioner have amounted to various sums from $28,000 to $50.000 a year, and have been entirely consumed by the charges of said commissioner; that it appears to be the practice of said commissioner to make such a disposition of the receipts of the office as to use them up: that the salaries of the deputy commissioners were $2,500 each for the year 1870. and $3,-800 each for the year 1877; and that the commissioner undertakes to explain such increase in salaries by stating that the salaries are flexible and states no other reason therefor.
In the deposition referred to the shipping commissioner testifies as follows, on his direct-examination: “From the time of my first appointment, in 1872. when the shipping law took effect, I consulted with Judge Woodruff at every step. The rental of the offices, the salaries of the deputies and other employees, were arranged with his full knowledge and consent. The expenses of the office could only be borne out of the- fees, which were fluctuating, and it was decided, that, while certain expenses, such as rental, clerk hire, outdoor officers, fuel, lights. &e.. had to be fixed and provided for, the salaries of myself and the deputies must needs be flexible. It was arranged, that all the deputies, at the beginning of each year, should sign an agreement, by which they should render their sendees for the entire current year, accepting such pay therefor as the fees of the office would yield after the before-mentioned fixed expenses were paid, such salaries in no case to exceed four thousand dollars. Under this arrangement the salaries of the deputies have varied, from year to year, from $1,200 to $4,000. I have never, in any one year, received my own salary entire for that year. The salaries of the deputies, in 1870, were $4.000 each. In 1877, it was $2.550 each. The first four months of 1877 would have yielded the deputies $1,800 a year, one $2,400 a year, and myself about $3.500 a year. I submitted the whole matter to Judge Johnson personally, on my first interview with him, and he used the expression: T don’t see, under the circumstances, hnw you can do any differently.’ The salaries for that year amounted to $3,800, the largest; one, a half year, at $1,900; and Mr. Pentz $200 a month until he died, which, I think, was in August." On his cross-examination by the assistant district attorney, he testified as follows: “Q. What is the character of the services required of the deputies? A. They begin by assisting captains in forming their agreements with their crews. They assist captains in selecting crews on the floor. They explain to each seaman the nature of the contract. They witness and certify the signature of each seaman. They issue an advance note to each seaman and put it in his own hand, while sober. They supervise the preparation of every ship's papers outward. They supervise the putting of ship’s crews on board, in difficult cases doing it in person themselves. They go on board ships in the harbor and quell mutinies and arrange disputes. "When seamen are scarce, they go to neighboring ports, even as far as Chicago, to bring crews here. They examine every sailor’s account, as rendered, with the captain. and correct it. when correction is needed. They arrange minor differences with seamen, in their settlement. They witness officially the discharge and payment of every seaman, while sober. They issue certificates of discharge to every seaman. They receive and pay out cash due to seamen to the amount of about 8100.000 a month. They attend to all steamers on board, without troubling them to come to the office, and maintain perfect order and discipline through the building. Q. Can you state how much has been received as fees, under the schedule providing for the payment, of fees for apprenticeships? A. Five dollars. Q. you have office hours each day. What are they? A. From half past S a. m., until 5 p. m., for indoor employees, and as much longer as may be necessary. The work often keeps them till 0 or 7 o’clock. The outdoor men have to be in readiness for duty at all hours, day and night; very frequently on duty at 4 o'clock in the morning, to get
The receipts of the shipping commissioner’s office, from shipping fees, were, in 1872 (from August 1st). $15,922; in 1S73, $29,762; in 1874, $41,500; in 1875, $39,200; in' 1S76, $23.062: in 1S77. $22.625. Its receipts front paying-off fees, on discharge, were, in 1S72
1.As to the allegation, that, on the deposition of the shipping commissioner, the master should have reported that the salaries, at the rate of $3,800 a year, paid to the three deputy commissioners, F. C. Duncan, G. F. Duncan and C. D. Duncan, were entirely too large for the work performed by them. There is nothing to show that any such point was taken by the district attorney before the master. Nor was any evidence introduced before the master, by the district attorney, to show that the salaries of the deputies were too large for the work performed by them. No witness expresses an opinion to that effect, nor was the shipping commissioner asked whether he could not have obtained competent persons to discharge the duties so performed for a less compensation, nor was any evidence given that he could. The arrangement made is testified to have had the sanction of each of my predecessors, Judges Woodruff and Johnson. The three deputies j named were deputies from the beginning. ¡ The arrangement was one which sanctioned a salary of $4,000 to each of them, if the fees' of the office would pay it. It has never exceeded that sum. The commissioner and the deputies had a right to rely on the arrangement. until it should be shown, on notice and hearing, that the salaries ought to be reduced. These observations cover the above named accounts. I do not intend to say, however, that the salaries of the deputies and of other subordinates ought not to be reduced and their number fixed for the future, nor do I intend to say that they ought. The propriety of the salaries paid was not questioned before the court by the district attorney until the report for the year 1877 was brought up, although the arrangement, was fully explained by the shipping commissioner in his deposition of November 1, 1876, in regard to the accounts down to the close of ¡ 1875. Under section 4501 of the Revised i Statutes, the court has power to regulate the i mode of conducting business in the office of I the shipping commissioner, and has full and complete .control over the same. If the district attorney desires an order of reference to a master to take proof as to what the number of employees in the office of the shipping commissioner should be for the future, and what their salaries should be, and what would be a proper arrangement in regard to those matters, to be sanctioned by the court, such an order will be made.
2. As to the claim that the $572.78 should not have been allowed by the master as a charge against the receipts of 1877, I do not think the exception can be allowed. It does-not appear that the point was raised before the master. The practice was sanctioned by the district attorney, in reference to the deficiency of $657, in 1872, and in reference to the deficiency of $1,426.10 at the end of 1873, and in reference to the surplus of$126.12' at the end of 1874, and in reference to the deficiency of $433.42 at the end of 1875, by his not excepting to the report in reference to the accounts for those years. This court,, in May. 1876, in Re Shipping Commissioner [Case No. 12.792). said, in reference to the accounts down to the close of 1875: “The act in question is not a revenue law. There is in it no intention manifested to raise any revenue for the United States out of the fees to be paid under it. It is entirely consistent 'with its scope and purpose, that congress designed that the system established by it should be self-sustaining as to expenses and emoluments, and that any surplus thereafter of fees should be paid into the treasury, in order that congress might, in view of the amount, if any, of such surplus, so readjust the fees as to make the system no more than self-sustaining.” The shipping commissioner had a right to rely on the principle, as an established one, that he would be allowed to charge the $572.78 against the receipts of 1S77. If a change in that respect is to be made for the future it should be made by an order of the court, on notice and hearing.
3. As to the claim that the power of the shipping commissioner to employ clerks, granted to him by section 4505 of the Revised Statutes, does not authorize the appointment of deputy commissioners. The proceedings-before recited show that there have been deputy commissioners from the beginning, and that the propriety of their appointment has been sanctioned by the master and the court and the district attorney. Section 4505 provides, as follows: “Any shipping commissioner may engage clerks to assist him in the transaction of the business of the shipping office, at his own proper cost, and may. in ease of necessity, depute such clerks to act for him in his official capacity: but the shipping commissioner shall be held responsible-for the acts of every such clerk or deputy, and will be personally liable for any penalties such clerk or deputy may incur by the-violation of any of the provisions of this title: and all acts done by a clerk, as such deputy,.
4. The other matters embraced in the exceptions are statements as to what is contained in the deposition of the commissioner and in the accounts.
For the reasons before stated, the matters of the exceptions, considered as objections to the confirming of the report, must be overruled, and an order must be entered confirming the report of the master in regard to the accounts for 1876, and a like order must be entered confirming the report of the master in regard to the accounts for 1877.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.