IN EE clbrk's chaeges. 441 �paid in part by an annual salary from the govemment. His compensation is limited, and fixed by the fee bill of 1853, now section 828, U. S. Eev. St. There is no provision to be found therein requiring the clerit to perform gratuitous services on behalf of the government, nor would it be just that he should be required to do so, unleas a small annual salary were given him, as in the marshal's and district attorney's cases. His relations with the government in this respect, therefore, are exactly the same as with individuals. Whatever services it requires of him, if they oome legitimately within the terms of his schedule of fees in section 828, U. S. Eev. St., and •whether ordered by a departmental officiai, or imposed by a statute, must be paid for accordiug to that schedule. The inquiry here then is, does section 6e3, U. S. Eev. St., require the performance of suoh duties and services by the clerk ? We think unquestionably it does; it requires, when the proper petition and certiflcate has been filed alleging that a criminal prosecution has been commenced in a state court against the petitioner for acts done by him while in the discharge of his duty as special deputy marshal, duly appointed and qualified to act as such at an election for a representative in congress, as in this case, or while in the discharge of this duty as a revenue officer, that the clerk shall file said petition, and "shall enter" the cause upon the docket of the circuit court as pending, and "shall issue" duplicate writs of haheas cor- pus, etc. The language is imperative and mandatory, and no discretion is lef t to the clerk to refuse to perform the services, unless the fees for the same be paid by the petitioner. We think the United States is clearly responsible for the payment of these charges. We are farther informed that in 12 cases lately settled in our own circuit court. Nos. 1 to 12, June term, A. D. 1874, being suits at law by certain proprietors and masters of coal barges against William D. Nolen and others, the collecter of this port and other revenue oeQcials, for damages on account of alleged illegal seizure by said offi- ciais while acting in the discharge of their duties, judgment for costs was confessed by the district attorney on behalf of said defendants, and the costs were paid by the government ����
