646, entitled "An act for the
relief of William R. Wheaton and Charles H. Chamberlain, of California."

These parties were, respectively, for a number of years prior to 1879,
the register and receiver of the land office at San Francisco, in the
State of California.

Prior to July, 1877, they had collected and retained, apparently without
question, certain fees allowed by law for reducing to writing the
testimony heard by them in establishing the rights of claimants to
public lands.

On the 9th day of July, 1877, these officials were notified by the
Acting Commissioner of the General Land Office that monthly thereafter,
and dating from July 1, 1877, such fees should be reported with other
fees to the General Land Office.

This notification furnished clear information that, whatever may have
been the justification for their retention of these fees in the past,
the parties notified must thereafter account to the Government for the
same.

On the 8th day of February, 1879, the beneficiaries were peremptorily
required by the Commissioner of the General Land Office to deposit in
the Treasury of the United States the sums which they had received for
the services mentioned since July 1, 1877, and which, though reported,
had not been paid over. Soon thereafter, and pursuant to this demand,
the sum of $5,330.76, being the aggregate of such fees for the nineteen
months between July 1, 1877, and February 1, 1879, was paid over to the
Government.

On the 19th day of February, 1879, these officers were authorized to
employ two clerks, each upon a salary of $100 per month.

The purpose of the bill now under consideration is to restore to the
beneficiaries from the money paid over to the Government, as above
stated, the sum of $3,800. This is proposed upon the theory that clerks
were employed by the register and receiver to do the work for which the
fees were received, and that these officials having paid them for their
services they should be reimbursed from the fund.

It will be observed that whatever services were performed by clerks in
the way of writing down testimony, and paid for by the beneficiaries,
were performed and paid for after July, 1877, and after they had in
effect received notice that such employment and payment would not be
approved by the Government.

Upon this statement the claim covered by the Dill can hardly be urged on
legal grounds, whatever the Government may have allowed prior to such
notice.

I