Summary

Nathan Clifford Donovan v. United States — Opinion of the Court

Nothing is contained in the act to support any such theory or to afford the slightest evidence that Congress intended anything of the kind. Instead of that the act provides that the surveyor charged with such duties shall receive, in addition to his customary fees, an annual salary of three hundred and fifty dollars, which is utterly inconsistent with the theory that he is entitled by virtue of that act to the same compensation as the collector of one of the enumerated ports.
Source: Wikisource

Nathan Clifford Donovan v. United States — Opinion of the Court

Collectors under those provisions may receive the maximum rate of their offices if the office, after deducting the necessary expenses incident to the same, produces that amount from all the sources of emolument recognized and prescribed by the laws in operation. No one can receive more than the maximum rate and his lawful claim may be much less, according to the amount of business transacted in the office. [15]
From that time until the passage of the act of the third of March, 1841, the laws providing for compensation of collectors remained without material change.
Source: Wikisource

Nathan Clifford Donovan v. United States — Opinion of the Court

Payment of the duties, however, is not required to be made at that port, but the importer is required to give a bond, called a transportation bond, conditioned that the packages described in the invoice shall, within a specified time, be delivered to the surveyor and acting collector of the port of St. Louis. Due notice of the proceedings is then given by the collector of the port where the duties were ascertained and assessed to the acting collector of the port to which the merchandise is destined.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature