DISTRICT COURT IOR THE CANAL ZONE.

the Treasury, Purham, (4th Mackay, 235),,, is applicable here, I am unable to examine this case as the report in which it is published is not to be had on the Zone. The respondent gives in his brief the following purported excerpt from the opinion:
That a court must not permit the United States to be sued by a mandamus directed to one of its officers where it could not be sued directly unless by its own consent under some special statute allowing it. Now it does not require the argument to manifest that a refusal by an officer of the Treasury Department whose general duty under the law is to allow and take steps to issue a warrant for the payment of any claim, is a refusal of the claim by the United States for the time being; that a mandamus against him to compel the allowance and payment thereof, is a suit against the United States, and that it is none the less a suit a against the United States because the ground or notices of refusal to allow may be obviously and notoriously without legal justification. In other words, that no error of judgment or capriciousness of conduct can destroy, for the time being, the quality of agent and actor in the name and oa behalf of the Government of theproper Treasury official in disallowing the claim of any State or individual for money due or alleged to be owing by the United States.
I fail to see what bearing that decision has upon the instant case, for judge Jackson's salary is no t a claim and there is no dispute in ,,respect to the payment of the same except that which arises from the denial of the authority of the auditor to withhold a part of the ascertained and fixed salary. I have, dealt. with this phase of the case in another part of this opinion.
Louisiana vs. McAd oo, 234 U. S., .627, is. cited by the respondent. In that case the State of Louisiana, through its Attorney General, sought to obtain permission to file a petition against the Secretary of the Treasury and, the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in order to review their official judgment as to the rate of duty to be exacted under various tariff acts. In that case the Court said that it the State of Louisiana, as a producer of sugar, could review the action of the Secretary of the Treasury in determining the rate to be collected on Cuban sugar, any consumer, though not an importer, might make a similar complaint if in his judgment the Secretary of the Treasury exacted a higher rate than justified by the law, thereby enhancing the price he must pay in the market upon the imported articles which he used. The Court held that it was an attempt to review the official action of the Secretary of the Treasury in the, exercise of his judgment as to the rate which should be demanded under his construction of the tariff act, and that such suits would. operate to disturb the whole revenue system of the Government, and affect the revenues which arise therefrom. Furthermore, it was stated that such a suit would obviously be one against the United States as such.
The respondent cites United States, ex rel., Goldberg vs. Daniels, 231 U. S., 218. That was a petition for mandamus, praying that the Secretary of the Navy be directed to deliver the U. S. cruiser Boston to the