OHADWICK V. UNITED STATES. 753 �he anything to do with them in a case like the present. In- stead of that, they are papers or documents in the immediate custody of the treasury department, and the secretary, or the assistant secretaries, are the proper persons to authenticate copies of the same under the seal of the department. U, S. Y. Barton, Gilpin, 439 ; FaUeck v. Barney, 6 Blatchf . 38. Cases are referred to where it is held that the copy must be authen- ticated by the certificate of the register, and that may still be the better rule where the paper or document is annexed to, or forms a part of, the transcript; but it cannot be held that the certificate of the secretary of the treasury is insufficient •where it appears that the paper in question vras in custody pf that department, and is wholly disconnected from the settle- ment of the acooun't embraced in the transcript evidenced by the certificate of the register. Smith v. U. S. 5 Pet. 291. Congress prpvided, at a very early period, that the secretary of state shall cause a seal of office to be made of his depart- ment, and that ail copies of records and papers in the office, authenticated under the said seal, shall be evidence equally as the original record or paper. l St. at Large, 69. Copies of records and papers deposited in that office were.ever after the passage of that act, authenticated by the incumbent of the office,, under the seal of the department. Power to authenti- cate copies of certain records, papers, and documents was, by a subsequent act, extended to ail the heads of department, and to the soliciter of the treasury, and the provision is that such copies may be read in evidence in ail courts. 9 St. at Large, 350. Unlimited provision was made by a still later act, that ail books, papers, documents, and records in the department of the interior may be copied, and certified under the seal of the department, in the same manner as in the other executive departments, and with the same force and effeet. 10 St. at Large, 297. Taken together, these several provisions, including the section of the Eevised Statutes re- ferred to, show, beyond doubt, that the copy of tke bond was duly authenticated, and that it was properly admitted in evidence, which fuUy disposes of the objection that the court v.3,no.l8— '18 ����
