lawful disbursements as may be approved by the Attorney-General of the United States, upon a certificate by the judges of said courts stating that such claim for services and disbursements is just and reasonable; and the sum so allowed shall be paid out of the judiciary fund. [R. S.] This section was amended "so as to read as" above given by section 3 of the Act of Jan. 31, 1879, ch. 39, 20 Stat. L. 277. Originally this section was as follows: "SEC. 904. It shall be the duty of the district attorney for the northern district of Illinois to take such steps as may be necessary to restore the records and files of the circuit and district courts of said district which were destroyed by fire on the ninth of October, eighteen hundred and seventy-one, and in which the United States is interested, so far as the judges of said courts, respectively, shall deem it essential to the interests of the United States that said records and files be restored; and the judges of said courts, respectively, are authorized to direct such steps to be taken as, in their opinion, shall be deemed advisable to restore the judgment dockets and indices of said courts, and for that purpose may direct the performance, by the clerks of said courts, and by the United States attorney for said district, of any duty incident thereto; and said clerks and said district attorney shall be allowed such compensation and disbursements for services rendered under this section (in cases where no compensation is now provided by law for such services) as may be allowed by the Attorney-General, and certified to be just and reasonable by the judge of the court in which said services are rendered, and the amount so allowed shall be paid out of the judiciary fund: Provided, however, That the sum allowed the clerks of said courts shall not exceed the sum of twelve thousand dollars, and the entire compensation of the United States attorney for such services shall not exceed the sum of six thousand dollars." Act of March 18, 1872, ch. 56, 17 Stat. L. 41. Sec. 905. [Authentication of legislative acts and proof of judicial proceedings of States, etc.] The acts of the legislature of any State or Territory, or of any country subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, shall be authenticated by having the seals of such State, Territory, or country affixed thereto. The records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any State or Territory, or of any such country, shall be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate, that the said attestation is in due form. And the said records and judicial proceedings, so authenticated, shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts of the State from which they are taken. [R. S.] Act of May 26, 1790, ch. 11, 1 Stat. L. 122; Act of March 27, 1804, ch. 56, 2 Stat. L. 299. Statutes of state or territory. — The statute book offered in evidence was an edition of the laws of Pennsylvania, purporting to be published by authority of the legislature of that state, and deposited in the department of state of the United States under the Act of Congress requiring the secretary of state to obtain copies of the laws, and was admitted in evidence in a court of the District of Columbia though not authenticated in the manner provided for by this statute. Commercial, etc., Bank r. Patterson, (1882) 2 Cranch (C. C.) 346. This statute requires no other or further formality to authenticate an act of a state legislature than the seal of the state; the seal itself is supposed to import absolute verity, and it must always be presumed that it was affixed by a person having the custody of the seal and competent authority to do the act. U. S. v. Amedy, (1826) 11 Wheat. (U. S.) 392. An act of a state was admitted in evidence when certified by the clerk of the executive council, and the seal of the state was an nexed. U. S. v. Johns, (1806) 1 Wash. (U. S.) 363. A printed pamphlet, without seal, purporting to be the law of a territory, is inadmissible. Craig . Brown, (1816) Pet. (C. C.) 352. Judicial proceedings- Proceeding supplemental to execution. The statute is not restricted to the case of judgments. Where the laws of a state provide for the examination of a debtor, in a proceeding supplemental to execution, such examination constitutes a judicial proceeding, and admissions of the debtor, properly authenticated, are evidence against him in a suit in another state. In re Rooney, (1871) 6 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 163, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12,032. The final settlement of an executor, before the appropriate state tribunal, containing an itemized statement of the accounts of the executor with the estate of his testator, giving debts and credits in full, and finding a balance in the hands of the executor, which he was ordered to distribute according to the will of the testator and the laws of the case, constitutes a judicial proceeding within the meaning of this statute. Fitzsimmons . Johnson, (1891) 90 Tenn. 416. A discharge under a state insolvent law is a judicial proceeding. Channing v. Reiley, (1835) 4 Cranch (C. C.) 528. Recording foreign wills. — A state statute provides that "authenticated copies" of foreign wills shall be recorded, in order that they may have the same effect in passing title to lands in that state as is given to the recording of domestic wills. Such wills must be authenticated in the manner prescribed by this section as to the authentication of records, and a certificate that the attestation of the clerk is in due form, made by the governor of the state, acting through his private secretary, and not by the judge, chief justice, or presiding judge of the court where the will was admitted to probate, is insufficient. Harrison v. Weatherby, (1899) 180 Ill. 418. Transcript of minutes. An exception that the court excluded docket entries duly certified cannot be maintained, as the writing produced did not purport to be a record, but a mere transcript of minutes extracted from the docket of the court. Ferguson v. Harwood, (1813) 7 Cranch (U. S.) 408. A judgment of a justice of the peace in Pennsylvania was admitted in evidence in an action of debt upon the judgment, where such judgment had been entered of record in the Court of Common Pleas of the county, and the record of the court was certified by the prothonotary and the presiding judge, according to this statute. Hade v. Brotherton, (1829) 3 Cranch (C. C.) 594. See Indictment. The provisions of this section do not apply to an indictment by a grand jury, as such a body is not a court. In re Dana, (1895) 68 Fed. Rep. 886. Matter of Leary, (1879) 10 Ben. (U. S.) 197.. Attestation by clerk. The clerk's certificate need not show that such clerk had charge of the records of the court, in order to authorize him to certify thereto; this section does not require that this be certified to or shown, and this fact will be presumed. Ritchie v. Carpenter, (1891) 2 Wash. 512. The court is precluded from receiving any other evidence than the record itself to show that the attestation was not in due form of law, and when the certificate of the clerk states that "the aforegoing is truly taken from the record of proceedings "in that court it will be presumed to be a full copy of the record of all the proceedings in the case. Ferguson v. Harwood, (1813) 7 Cranch (U. S.) 408. By deputy. An attestation by a deputy clerk is not within the terms of the statute. Willock v. Wilson, (1901) 178 Mass. 68. The seal should be annexed to the record, of which the certificate of the judge is no part, and when the seal appears, not on the record with the attestation of the clerk, but with the certificate of the judge, it will not be admitted. Turner . Waddington, (1811) 3 Wash. (U. S.) 126. See Talcott v. Delaware Ins. Co., (1810) 2 Wash. (U. S.) 449. It is only necessary that the seal be attached to the certificate of the clerk; it does not matter that the seal was not attached to the record. Ritchie v. Carpenter, (1891) 2 Wash. 512. Certificate of judge or magistrate. A copy of a judgment of a state court certified by the clerk alone, without the certificate of a judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate that the attestation was in due form of law, cannot be admitted in evidence. Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Stevens, (C. C. A. 1895) 71 Fed. Rep. 258. See also Smith v. Brockett, (1897) 69 Conn. 492; Gardner v. Lindo, (1802) 1 Cranch (C. C.) 78. The certificate must show that the person signing it as a judge was, at the time of so signing, the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate of the court in which the judg ment is of record. U. S. v. Biebusch, 1 Fed. Rep. 213. It is not necessary that the official character of the certifying judge or magistrate shall be certified by the governor under the great seal of the state, nor that the clerk of the court shall certify under his hand and seal of office that the certifying judge or magistrate is duly commissioned and qualified. Kinseley v. Rumbough, (1887) 96 N. Car. 193. See also Taylor v. Carpenter, (1846) 2 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 1. The record of the Supreme Court of a state, attested by the clerk, with the seal annexed, in which the judge states himself to be one of the judges of the Supreme Court of Tennessee," is not duly authenticated. This does not import that he was the sole judge, chief justice, or presiding judge of that court. Stewart v. Gray, (1830) Hempst, (U. S.). 94. A certificate signed by the judge as both judge and clerk, and sealed with the seal of the court, is sufficient. When the judge is also ex officio clerk, he must certify in each capacity, but it is a matter of form rather than of substance whether the certification be made by two separate certificates, or comprised in one. Keith v. Stiles, (1896) 92 Wis. 15. When the judge in his certificate states that the person named is the clerk of the court "whereof I am the judge," it is a fair inference from the use of the term "the judge," that he is the sole judge of the court, and the proper person to sign the attestation.` Willock v. Wilson, (1901) 178 Mass. 68. The national courts will take judicial notice that the judge who signed the certificate is the sole judge of the district in which the proceedings are of record. Bennett v. Bennett, (1867) Deady (U. S.) 299. It is a fatal defect when the presiding magistrate omits the statement in his certificate that the attestation of the clerk is in due form. A court cannot officially know the forms of another state. Trigg v. Conway, (1847) Hempst. (U. S.) 538. See also Craig v. Brown, (1816) Pet. (C. C.) 352; Catlin v. Underhill, (1847) 4 McLean (U. S.) 199. Mode of authentication not exclusive. This statute providing for the mode of authenticating records of state courts is not exclusive, and states can adopt any other method. Gribble v. Pioneer Press Co., (1883) 15 Fed. Rep. 689. See Willock v. Wilson, (1901) 178 Mass. 68; Wells r. Davis, (1887) 105 N. Y. 670; Hewitt r. Indian Ter. Bank, (Neb. 1902) 92 N. W. Rep. 741; Title Guar In Ritchie t. Carpenter, (1891) 2 Wash. 512, the court said: While the legislature could not enact that any further or additional matters should be certified to not required by the laws of the United States, it could dispense with some of the requirements there provided for." Sufficiency of authentication question of law. In an action of debt on a judgment, on a plea of nul tiel record, it is the province of the court, and not that of the jury, to decide when the proof of the record is sufficient. Wittemore r. Malcomson, (1886) 28 Fed. Rep. 605. Authentication according to statute not required by United States courts. Compliance with this statute as to the authentication of judicial records is not required as to the records of a state court where introduced in evidence in a federal court in the same state. Mewster v. Spalding, (1853) 6 McLean (U. S.) 24. See also Channing v. Reiley, (1835) 4 Cranch (C. C.) 528. The national courts take judicial knowledge of the laws of every state in the Union, and do not require the certificate of the judge of a state court that the attestation of the clerk thereof is in due form of law, as they determine that matter by their knowledge of the laws of the state where it was made. Bennett v. Bennett, (1867) Deady (U. S.) 299. Records and proceedings of United States courts. The statute does not apply to the courts of the United States, but is Timited in terms to the records and judicial proceedings of the state courts. Turnbull v. Payson, (1877) 95 U. S. 418. See also Owings v. Hull, (1835) 9 Pet. (U. S.) 607; U. S. v.. Wood, (1818) Brun. Col. Cas. (U. S.) 456, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16.757; In re Neale, (1869) 3 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 177, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 10,066; Mason v. Lawrason, (1804) 1 Cranch (C. C.) 190. This statute, providing the mode of proof of the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any state or territory, has no application to those of the courts of the United States. National Acc. Soc. v. Spiro, (C. C. A. 1899) 94 Fed. Rep. 750. While the statute in terms applies only to the state courts, the record of the United States courts is admissible in evidence in the state courts if authenticated by the seal of the court, attestation of the clerk, and certifi cate of the judge. Buford v. Hickman, (1834) Hempst. (U. S.) 232. In O'Hara v. Mobile, etc., R. Co., (C. C. A. 1896) 76 Fed. Rep. 718, the court said: "While that section does not, in terms, include the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of the United States, it has been the uniform practice from 1790 down to the present time to follow its requirements in authenticating the records and judicial proceedings of those courts, and such authentication has always been held sufficient." "So far as this statutory provision relates to the effect to be given to the judicial proceedings of the states, it is founded on art. 4, sec. 1, of the Constitution, which, however, does not extend to the other cases covered by the statute. The power to prescribe what effect shall be given to the judicial proceedings of the courts of the United States is conferred by other provisions of the Constitution." Embry v. Palmer, (1882) 107 U. S. 3. United States courts must give faith and credit. "The Act of Congress goes, perhaps, further than the constitutional requirement, which relates to the faith and credit to be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state, inasmuch as it declares the effect of the records and judicial proceedings of the states when authenticated, as provided in every court within the United States,' thus making its provisions applicable to the national courts, as well as to the courts of the states." Galpin v. Page, (1874) 3 Sawy. (U. S.) 93. 66 The statutory provision extends to every court within the United States,' and therefore to courts of the United States, and such courts are therefore bound to give to judgments of state courts the same faith and credit which the courts of another state are bound to accord to them." Union, etc., Bank v. Memphis, (C. C. A. 1901) 111 Fed. Rep. 561. Courts of the District of Columbia. The judgments of the courts of the United States are upon the same footing, so far as concerns the obligation created by them, with domestic judgments of the states, wherever rendered and wherever sought to be enforced; and that the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia is a court of the United States results from the right of exclusive legislation over the District which the Constitution has given to Congress. Embry v. Palmer, (1882) 107 U. S. 3. Sec. 906. [Proofs of records, etc., kept in offices not pertaining to courts.] All records and exemplifications of books, which may be kept in any public office of any State or Territory, or of any country subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, not appertaining to a court, shall be proved or admitted in any court or office in any other State or Territory, or in any such country, by the attestation of the keeper of the said records or books, and the seal of his office annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the presiding justice of the court of the county, parish, or district in which such office may be kept, or of the governor, or secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal, of the State, or Territory, or country, that the said attestation is in due form, and by the proper officers. If the said certificate is given by the presiding justice of a court, it shall be further authenticated by the clerk or prothonotary of the said court, who shall certify, under his hand and the seal of his office, that the said presiding justice is duly commissioned and qualified; or, if given by such governor, secretary, chancellor, or keeper of the great seal, it shall be under the great seal of the State, Territory, or country aforesaid in which it is made. And the said records and exemplifications, so authenticated, shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court and office within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts or offices of the State, Territory, or country, as aforesaid, from which they are taken. [R. S.] Act of March 27, 1804, ch. 56, 2 Stat. L. 298, 299; Act of Feb. 21, 1871, ch. 62, 16 Stat. L. 419. "Shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court and office within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts or offices of the state," does not impart to an authenticated state record anything more than "faith and credit," and does not extend the effect of a decision against a state to the United States, nor make an award or judgment which might be final against a state either obligatory in law, or conclusive as evidence, against the United States." Williams v. U. S., (1890) 137 U. S. 113. A recorded mortgage is such a record as is within the meaning of this statute, and an exemplification of the record may be admitted in evidence when, by the law of the state in which the mortgage is of record, the record, as between the parties, is made evi dence of the existence, execution, the conveyance of the lands therein described, the indebtedness thereby created, and the covenants and agreements therein contained. Chase v. Caryl, (1895) 57 N. J. L. 545. It is not competent to prove by the testimony of the register of deeds of another state that an instrument read in evidence was a chattel mortgage, duly filed and recorded in his office; proof of such instrument should be made in the manner required by this section. Jones v. Melindy, (1896) 62 Ark. 203. The statute does not exclude every other mode of authentication, nor abrogate any principle of evidence previously established. "It is the settled rule that when the copy of an instrument is certified to by the officer whose duty it is by law to keep the original on file in his office, it must be received as evidence of the original." Logansport Gas Light, etc., Co. v. Knowles, (1871) 4 Chicago Leg. N. 75, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,466. Sec. 907. [Copies of foreign records, etc., relating to land-titles in the United States.] It shall be lawful for any keeper or person having the custody of laws, judgments, orders, decrees, journals, correspondence, or other public documents of any foreign government or its agents, relating to the title to lands claimed by or under the United States, on the application of the head of one of the Departments, the Solicitor of the Treasury, or the Commissioner of the General Land-Office, to authenticate copies thereof under his hand and seal, and to certify them to be correct and true copies of such laws, judgments, orders, decrees, journals, correspondence, or other public documents, respectively; and when such copies are certified by an American minister or consul, under his hand and seal of office, to be true copies of the originals, they shall be sealed up by him and returned to the Solicitor of the Treasury, who shall file them in his office, and cause them to be recorded in a book to be kept for that purpose. A copy of any such law, judgment, order, decree, journal, correspondence, or other public document, so filed, or of the same so recorded in said book, may be read in evidence in any court, where the title to land claimed by or under the United States may come into question, equally with the originals. [R. S.] Act of Feb. 22, 1849, ch. 61, 9 Stat. L. 346; Act of March 2, 1849, ch. 82, 9 Stat. L. 350. Sec. 908. [Relates to Little & Brown's edition of statutes as evidence. STATUTES.] See Sec. 909. [Burden of proof, when lies on claimant in seizure cases. See FINES, PENALTIES, AND FORFEITURES.] Sec. 910. [Possessory actions for recovery of mining titles. See MINERAL LANDS, MINES, AND MINING.] Sec. 2469. [Copies of records, etc., to be certified.] The Commissioner of the General Land-Office shall cause to be prepared, and shall certify, under the seal of the office, such copies of records, books, and papers on file in his office, as may be applied for, to be used in evidence in courts of justice. [R. S.] Act of July 4, 1836, ch. 352, 5 Stat. L. 111. See R. S. sec. 891, supra, relative to copies of records, etc., of General Land Office. Duplicate tract book-original destroyed. - Where the records of a land office were destroyed by fire, a tract book, purporting to show what portions of the land of the various townships named therein is public land, prepared under the direction of the commissioner of the General Land Office as a substitute for the original tract book destroyed, may be used in evidence, though it is not 66 certified by the commissioner of the General Land Office to be a correct copy of any record or paper on file in his office. 'Its character as such was sufficiently established by proof that it was in use as a tract book in the local land office, that it was made under the direction of the commissioner of the general land office, and had been transmitted by him to the register and receiver for their official use." Jesse D. Carr Land, etc., Co. v. U. S., (C. C. A. 1902) 118 Fed. Rep. 821. Sec. 2470. [Exemplifications valid without names of officers signing and countersigning.] Literal exemplifications of any records which have been or may be granted in virtue of the preceding section shall be deemed of the same validity in all proceedings, whether at law or in equity, wherein such exemplifications are adduced in evidence, as if the names of the officers signing and countersigning the same had been fully inserted in such record. [R. S.] Act of March 3, 1843, ch. 95, 5 Stat. L. 627. Sec. 4071. [Taking testimony to be used in foreign countries.] The testimony of any witness residing within the United States, to be used in any suit for the recovery of money or property depending in any court in any foreign country with which the United States are at peace, and in which the government of such foreign country shall be a party or shall have an interest, may be obtained, to be used in such suit. If a commission or letters rogatory to take such testimony, together with specific written interrogatories, accompanying the same, and addressed to such witness, shall have been issued from the court in which such suit is pending, on producing the same before the district judge of any district where the witness resides or shall be found, and on due proof being made to such judge that the testimony of any witness is material to the party desiring the same, such judge shall issue a summons to such witness requiring him to appear before the officer or commissioner named in such commission or letters rogatory, to testify in such suit. And no witness shall be compelled to appear or to testify under this section except for the purpose of answering such interrogatories so issued and accompanying such commission or letters: Prorided, That when counsel for all the parties attend the examination, they may consent that questions in addition to those accompanying the commission or letters rogatory may be put to the witness, unless the commission or letters rogatory exclude such additional interrogatories. The summons shall specify the time and place at which the witness is required to attend, which place shall be within one hundred miles of the place where the witness resides or shall be served with such summons. [R. S.] Act of March 3, 1863, ch. 95, 12 Stat. L. 769; Act of March 3, 1873, ch. 245, 17 Stat. L. 581. See R. S. sec. 875, supra, relative to letters rogatory from United States courts. Only where foreign government is party or has interest."It would seem that, by Act of Congress, the power of the federal courts in this respect has been restricted to cases in which a foreign government is a party or has an interest." Matter of Pacific R. Commission, (1887) 32 Fed. Rep. 257. Criminal prosecution. A petition of the Spanish consul at the port of New York represented that he had received from the judge of the southern district of Santiago, in the island of Cuba, a commission, empowering him to take testimony of certain witnesses named therein, to be used in a criminal prosecution for swindling, a translation of |