760 FEDERAL REPORTER. �and that they procured the collector of the customs to write a letter to the commissioner asking that they might be relieved as such surqties. They, the defendants, elaimed that theyhad given notice to the plaintiffs to produce that letter, which not having been produced, they proceeded to inquire of the wit- ness what were the contents of the letter ; but the court ex- eluded the question, and ruled that the contents could only be proved by a copy of the same, duly certified from the treas- ury department, which ruling is the^ foundation of the tenth assignaient oferror. Communications addressed to the com- missioner, if of an officiai character, are filed when received in the proper office of the treasury department, and become papers or documents within the meaning of the act of con- gress, which provides that copies of papers and documents in any executive department, authenticated under the sealof the department, shall be admitted in evidence equally with the original. Eev. St. § 882. Papers of the sort, when filed in the proper office, says Mr. Justice Miller, become part of the records and archives of the office, and the law is welJ settled that in such a case the original need not be produced in any trial, but that copies of the same, certified by the officer in whose possession the original property is, may be used with the same effect as the original. If the government needs such a copy the district attorney will produce it if he pro- poses to use it at the trial; or if the other party wants to use it the law provides the means by which it can be obtained. Duly authenticated copies are the best attainable evidence in Buch a case, and must be produced unless some sufficient rea- Bon is shown for not doing so, and he adds that the govern- ment is not bound to furnish either the originals or certified copies to suitors with whom they are contending, unless upon demand at the proper office and tender of the lawful fees. Barney v. Schmeider, 9 Wall. 248, 253. �11. Enough appeared to show that the letter from the col- lector of the customs to the commissioner could not be found, but the defendants did not offer to prove its contents. Paroi testimony was given subsequently respecting the bond, and, on cross-examination of the first-named defendant, he was ����
