22   Jmnniur. mrromum. r ‘
I think the charge 'for pay>roll of .witnesses'excessive in most of the.
cases in which it is made; i The petitioner is entitled to a fee for admin-‘
istering the oath to ·each éwitnessz as tohis mileage and attendance, and
» A is entitledto 15 cents a. foliofor every order or certificate giverrthe wit-
` ness, and on which he.is paid. This is what the petitioner calls a “ pay-
“ ’ roll." I find. that in most of the cases in which the fee for pay-roll is
charged there was but one witness, and I further findthat the certificate,
contains less than 150 words; Rev. St.ᤤ 828, 854.-5 . r  
In the caseof U. S. v...Wallace, '116 U. S. 398, 6. Sup. Ct:Rep. 408,
it was. held that commissioners were entitled to docket fees under the
provisions of Rev. St.-c§§ 828, 847. This decision was rendered on J an·
uary 18, 1886. But by act of congress of August 4, 18,86,:it- i  provided
that they shall not be entitled to any docket fees. ..The docket fees
claimed in this case accrued in the year 1887, from February to June,
inclusive. The contention of the petitioner is, in substance, that the _
provision referred to is found in theappropriation bill of August 4, 1886,
in the proviso to the clause excepting docket fees, and that it excepts
them only from the sum"there appropriated for payment of commission-
ers; and, further, that inasmuch as. congress did not continue the excep··
tion inthe appropriation bill forthe fiscal year 1887, the proviso has
no eliect on the claim here made. In other words, that payment of
docket fees to commissioners was simplysuspended temporarily by act
of August 4, 1886; and the case of [L S. v. Langston, 118 U. S. 389, 6
Sup. Ct. Rep. 1185, is cited in. support of this proposition. This case
is. clearly distinguishable from U. S. v. Langston, as I understand it.
That case was where the claimant, Langston, brought suit to recover an·
unpaid .b».1a.¤ee· of salary claimed to be due himras minister to Hayti.
Ihappcars that on the creation of the oihce of minister to Hayti congress
fixed the salary of that ofiicer at $7,500 a year, and from that time un-
til the year 1888 made an annual appropriation of that sum for the~sal·»
ary. By act of July 1, 1882, there was appropriated by congress for the
fiscal year ending June 30,1883, only $5,000 to pay the salaryof the
minister to Hayti, and the same appropriation was made for each of the ,
‘ years ending June 30, 1884, andJ une 80, 1885. The suit was brought in ·
the spring of 1886, to recover the difference between $7,500 a year and
$5 ,000 a year, for the period from June 30, 1882, to July, 1885. The de-
~ ` tense was that congress, byappropriating a lesser sum, had indicated its
purpose to reduce the salary; I The court held that the statute which fixed
` , the annual salary at $7,500,~without limitation as to time, was not abro-`
gated or suspended by subsequent enactments appropriating a less amount ‘
for the salary for a particular year, the same containing no_ words which ex-,
pressly orimpliedly modiiiedor repealed it. Congress did not say that!
said ministershould ·receive·.n0 more than $5,000 a year for his salary. "
The converse ofthe proposition laid down in U.·?S.»v.fL¢mgstan, supra, j
must then be true: thatastatute nxing the salary of an oiiiceremust
bedeemed abrogated bymlsubsequent enactment appropriating money-
t0. pay for the services of,-that oficer, and containing words which, by
clear implication, repeal the previous law. Now, does the act of August ·