Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/896

 882 FiEDERAIi EEPOBTEE, �section 4785, which has been repealed, and that it is no longer a criminal offence to demand or receive illegal fees for prosecuting pen- sion daims. �Section 4785 simply authorized the commissioner of pensions to allow a fee of not exceeding $25 for prosecuting a claim. Not satis- fied with this provision for the protection of pensioners, congress, by the aot of 1878, declared that it should be unlawful for any agent or attorney to charge for his services in a single case more than $10, and repealed section 4785. It can hardly be doubted that it. was the desire of this statute to protect pensioners rather than claim agents and attorneys, and to give effect to this design the statute must be enforced as a substitute for section 4785. Why did con- gress by this act declare that it should be unlawful for the agent or attorney to demand or receive more than $10 for his services in any one case, and affii no penalty for its violation? Clearly, I think, because it was understood that the punishment provided in section 5485 was invforce and applicable. If it had been the intention of congress, while thus legislating in the interest of pensioners, to re- lieve agents and attorneys from criminal liability for demanding or ieceiving compensation in violation of law, that intention would have been manifested by an express repeal of section 5485, or that portioii of it which prescribed punishment for demanding or receiving fees in violation of law, as \yell as section 4785. �It is true that section 5485 declares that the agent or attorney flhall not demiand or receive a greater compensation "than is pro- vided in the title pertaining to pensions ;" but the fair meaning of that is, I think, that no greater compensation shall be demanded Cir re- coived than is provided by law. �In the general appiropriation act, approved March 3, 1881, the fol- lowing was inserted: "And the provision of section 5485 of the Revised Statutes shall be applicable to any person who shall violate the provisions of ari act entitled 'An act relating to olaitn' agents and attorneys in pension cases,' approved June 20, 1878." ■ After the passage of the act of 1878 conflicting views were entertained as to tthether there was any peiialty foV demanding or receiVing compen- sation in violation of law for prosecuting pension daims, and the clause just quoted 'was inserted in the appropriation act to remove that uncertainty. • . �I am aware that the learned circuit judge of the sixth circuit, foc whose judgment I have great respect, has held, in the case of U. S. T. Mason, reported in 8 Fed. Eep. 412, that the repeal of section ��� �