766 FEDERAL REPORTER. �the TÎews of the defendants cannot be sustaîned. U. S. v.' Powell, 14 Wall, 49^3, 501 ; Postrn. Gen. v. Munger, 2 Paine, 189; White v. Fox, 22 Me. 341; People v. Vilas, 36 N. Y. 459, 465; King v. Nicholas, 16 Ohio St. 80; U. S. v. Gaussen, 97 U. S. 584; U. S. v. McCartney, 1 Fed. Eep. 104; U. S. v. Singer, 15 Wall. 111. �5. Officiai accounts of a collector must be settled by the proper ofScers of the treasury department ; and, when duly eettled, a transcript of the same may be certiûed by the regis- ter of the treasury under the seal of the department; but one of the quartorly returns of the collector was certified by the assistant secretary of the treasury, and when it was olïered in evidence by the plaintiffs the defendants objeoted to its ad- missibility, and now assign for error the ruling of the court in admitting the document to be read to the jury. Ail admit that it might have been authenticated by the secretary of the treasury, and, if so, it is clear that the certificate of the assistant secretary, under the seal of the department, is equally regular and valid. Assistant seeretaries in the treasury de- partment are appointed under the authority of an aot of con- gress, with power to perform such duties in the office of the head of the department as he may presci'ibe, or as the law directs. 9 St. at Large, 396; Eev. St. § 245. Extensive duties are assigned to such, and in case of the death, resigna- tion, absence, or sicknessof the secretary, the proper assistant is required by law, unless otherwise directed by the president, to perform ail the duties of the department until a successor is appointed, or such absence or sickness shall cease. Eev. St. § 177. Nothing appearing to the' contrary, the legal presumption is that the certificate was made in pursuance of a lawful authority, and, being under the seal of the depart- ment, it is sufficient to show that the ruling of the court is correct. �6. Money was received by the collector to await the resuit of an attempt to compromise, and was retained by him. Evidence to prove that fact was offered by the plaintiffs, to whioh the defendants objeoted, insisting that the money was not public money; but the court overruled the objection and ����
