An Act for Regulating Processes in the Courts of the United States, and Providing Compensations for the Officers of the Said Courts, and for Jurors and Witnesses
(Philadelphia: Printed by Childs and Swaine, 1792). First edition, the issue without the statement of deposition on page four. Folio. (4) pp. Evans 24896. Marcus and Perry "The Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States" 177. Removed from a bound volume of pamphlets. Toned, some browning to outer edges, a few small damp spots, "No. 15" written in an early hand at the base of the first page, but a very good copy. Item #56096
"Perhaps the most pressing judicial issue facing the Second Congress was the need for some more detailed regulation of federal process and procedure. The Process Act of 1789, which had been intended as a stopgap measure, left most of those questions to be settled by reference to the practice of the various states. This temporary solution resulted in inequities. Some of these inequities, such as the inadequacy of state fees for service of process, had been addressed by the Compensation and Circuit Court Act of 1791. But because the 1791 act had not established uniform federal fees for judicial personnel, such as clerks, their compensation still varied widely from state to state. Faced with the expiration of the 1791 act in May 1792, the Senate appointed a committee to draft a bill providing compensation for judicial officers, jurors, and witnesses on November 1, 1791. The committee consisted of John Henry of Maryland, Caleb Strong of Massachusetts, and James Monroe of Virginia. Despite the committee's limited mandate, on January 26, 1792, Henry reported a bill that also touched on judicial process. Its first two sections essentially reenacted the process Act of 1789, with two changes. Section 1 directed that court seals were to be provided at the expense of the United States (a point not specified in the 1789 act), and Section 2 omitted the direction that fees in the federal courts were to be determined by the fees allowed in the highest courts of the respective states. The remaining section specified, among other things, some of the fees that were to prevail in the federal system" (Marcus and Perry). (2652).
Price: $2,000.00