ILLINOIS

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

PRODUCTION NOTE

University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign Library
Brittle Books Project, 2015.COPYRIGHT NOTIFICATION

In Public Domain.
Published prior to 1923.

This digital copy was made from the printed version held
by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
It was made in compliance with copyright law.

Prepared for the Brittle Books Project, Main Library,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
by

Northern Micrographics
Brookhaven Bindery
La Crosse, Wisconsin

2015The Fee System

How and Why It
Has Failed

The Austin Statesman Shows
Its Fallacies

A Series of Articles by Lloyd P. Lochridge
Published During January, 1913THE FEE

SYSTEM

SOME SHERIFFS ARE BETTER PAID
THAN GOVERNOR.

The Fee System of Texas Results in
Many Injustices.

PREMIUM ON CONVICTIONS.

Under Laws of Texas Men Who Are
Supposed to Pass Unbiased Judg-
ment Are Paid Only If They
Decide One Way.

(First Article.)

If the Thirty-third Legislature is to
devote its attention to the interests of
the people, to justice, and to right, it
can not avoid the consideration of the
operation of the fee system in this
State and the many abuses which exist
under it.

In 1897 an effort was made to rem-
edy evils which had previously existed
under the old commission system and
to reduce the compensation of officers.
The fee bill was passed. It is now
the law. Yet under it there are oppor-
tunities for abuse, for the ruthless col-
lection of the money of the State by
officers of which the taxpayers have
never dreamed.

In adopting such a system of com-
pensation the motive was good. It was
planned to pay officers for what they
did. It was hoped to spur officers on
to the enforcement of the law by
placing a reward where they appre-
hended and convicted persons trans-
gressing the laws of this State.

Yet it was in the very intention that
the first error was made. A premium
was not placed on justice. The District
Attorney or the Justice of the Peace
was not instructed in the ethics of jus-
tice. Instead he was informed that
where he could put a man in the peni-
tentiary, fine him heavily, or give him
a jail sentence, he might receive a re-
ward in the way of dollars and cents.
Where he allowed the defendant to go
free, his time must be considered lost,
for there would be no compensation.
In other words, these officers were
shown that dollars and cents depend

not upon justice, but upon the number
of men they may be able to convict.

Sheriffs, Constables, Clerks, Tax As-
sessors, Tax Collectors, and others wero
placed under the operation of the same
law. Yet in that law there were op-
portunities for them to draw from the
State many dollars to which they were
not entitled.

All of these matters will be discussed
more in detail in a series of articles
of wThich this is the first. It is in-
tended to point out specific instances
of abuse of the system, in the hope
that the Legislature may see fit to rem-
edy that which is so fatally defective.
In the beginning, let it be said that it
is not the purpose to impute dishonesty
to the officers. of the State, but to tell
the truth—to show that from the stand-
point of the people, existing conditions
are undesirable.

The officers will answer that the sys-
tem spurs them on to enforcement of
the law; that the law will not be so
well enforced if they are not rewarded
for convictions, and for what they ac-
complish. To them the answer is that
their own argument answers itself. For
them to say that for dollars and cents
alone, and plenty of them, they will en-
force the laws and uphold constituted
authority is for them to say that they
are willing to forget their oath to up-
hold the Constitution; that they have
not the sense of patriotic duty; that
they are not good citizens, for a good
citizen is willing to uphold the law un-
der any conditions. Such an argument
is a confession of the inherent weakness
of a man which renders him unfit for
public service. Unless he be willing to
enforce the law under any and all con-
ditions, he should be retired.

Officers in this State in all classes
should remember that the people are
entitled- to law enforcement. They
should remember that one of the funda-
mental principles of government is jus-
tice, and that a system which causes
men to assess property and polls which
do not exist, which cause Sheriffs to
charge for work never done, wliich
causes prosecuting attorneys to seek
convictions on perjured State testimony
at times, or to send a man to the peni-
tentiary where .the laws of humanity
call for another recourse, which causesConstables and Justices of the Peace to
become conspirators against the laws
of the State merely to make money is
a system which is inherently wrong in
principle and practice. Many of our of-
ficers never transgress in the slightest
degree the basic principles, yet there
are among them men whose acts,
either accidental or intentional, are such
as to tshow that they are not working
in accord with correct principle for com-
pensation.

It is not the intention to urge a sys-
tem which will ask that the officers of
the State work for nothing. Perhaps
the system has never been changed be-
cause some Legislators in their penny-
wise and pound-foolish conceptions of
the expenditure of money have not
looked upon the matter in the proper
light. They should be willing to give
the officers just and adequate compensa-
tion. They should not ask that they
work for nothing, for they should real-
ize that the people must pay for com-
petent public service. They should not
see defeated an effort to abolish a sys-
tem which pays some Sheriffs, Clerks,
and other officers in this State more
than the Governor, the Judges of the
higher courts, or the Attorney General
merely because they are unwilling to
compensate them properly.

•The county and district officials of
Texas are a powerful political influ-
ence. Under the -fee system they are
well compensated. They are given an
opportunity to make money which they
would not have if they were put on the
salary basis. They have come to the
Legislature with a powerful lobby from
time to time to protest against the
abolition of the system, and to ask
favors of the legislative bodies. They
have not been denied their request that
the system be allowed to stand. Their
requests for special favors have from
time to time been granted*

Any efforts to abolish this system in
the future must be undertaken with
the knowledge that there will be tre-
mendous influence exerted against
them. It must not be forgotten that
the Sheriffs will be here to ask more
special favors, instead of acquiescing
quietly to the abolition of the system.
It must not be forgotten that there will
be representatives of other branches of
the county and district service who will
be equally as vehement in their pro-
tests against any innovations at this
time.' The officials have now a system
of compensation which to them is de-
sirable because of its special privileges.
It is but natural that they protest
against a change. They look first to

self instead of to the interests of the
ignorant, the poor, and the people as
a whole. They have the spirit of "get
the dollar" which pervades the atmos-
phere of present-day affairs. They are
human, like the rest of the people, and
they want everything they can get. No
wonder they protest when we talk of
putting them on another basis.

PROPERTY THAT DOES NOT EXIST
IS ASSESSED.

Nearly $10,000,000 Worth Was on Rolls
of Texas for the Year 1911.

ASSESSORS GET THE FEES.

Thousands of Poll Taxes Are Assessed
on Rolls Against Persons Not Li-
able for Any Such Payment.

(Second Article.)

The records of the Comptroller of the
State show that the State of Texas and
counties in the State paid for tlie as-
sessment in the year 1911, of $9,944,838
of property that did not exist. In ad-
dition thereto, $123,817,500 in property
was carried on the delinquent list for
the year. Chief Bookkeeper Quillen of
the Comptroller's Department estimates
that at least half of $61,958,750 of this
amount was assessed on property which
did not exist. Thus it is figured that
the State and the several counties paid
for the assessment of $71,903,588 under
the operation of the fee system by the
$100 valuation where that much prop-
erty was practically imaginary. Had
the State and the several counties paid
their Tax Assessors on the regular
salary basis, the total taxable values
of the. State might not have run so
high, but it is certain that the State
would not be carrying on its books a
tremendous sum representing value of
property that does not exist and that
it would not have paid out of the peo-
ple's money for assessing taxes against
imaginary property.

Tax Assessors are paid 5 cents on
$100 for assessments running to $2,000,-
000, 2 1-4 cents on $100 from $2,000,000
to $5,000,000, and 1 7-10 cents on $100 for
amounts running above $5,000,000. The
State pays half of this amount and the
county half.

Tn addition thereto the State of Texas
pays 5 cents for each poll assessed. Some
Tax Assessors have begun the assessment—3—

of polls on the unrendered list to collect
the fee of 5 cents from the State where
the Tax Assessors could not possibly
have been sure of their grounds. For
instance, one Assessor this year assessed
7276 polls on the rendered list for his
county and 18,372 polls on his un-
rendered list. Another Assessor assessed
1374 polls on his rendered list and 11,674
polls on his unrendered list. For the
polls both on the rendered and un-
rendered list 5 cents apiece was col-
lected. The law provides specifically
that an Assessor to assess polls on the
unrendered list must of his own knowl-
edge know that the persons whom he
reported as subject to poll tax on the
unrendered list are subject to poll tax.
In other words, the Assessor of the first
of the counties must have known that
11,674 persons in his county were sub-
ject to poll before he could have properly
assessed them on the unrendered roll.
The Assessor of the other county must
have possessed like knowledge as to 18,-
372 persons in his county. That either
could have possessed such knowledge is
almost beyond reason.

Further proof of the impossibility of
such knowledge is shown in the fact
that in the previous year 12,793 of those
persons assessed on the unrendered roll
in the county of the Assessor last re-
ferred to were finally reported by the
Tax Collector as delinquent, although
the Tax Assessor had collected his 5
cents apiece on them. Further than
that, the Collector of that county re-
ported 4835 polls on his supplemental
rolls which shows that the Assessor, in
preparing the unrendered list, did not
include that many bona fide poll tax-
payers, although he had 12,793 on the
lists which never paid up their poll
taxes or did not exist in fact.

LAW SHOULD BE CHANGED.

That the operation of the fee system
with regard to the assessment of taxes
causes the State to pay out much money
on imaginary property and for imagi-
nary persons said to be due poll tax,
is the firm conclusion which must be
reached. That it is impossible to pre-
vent such a situation as the fee system
now operates is certain.

In fact, it has been found that often-
times tax rolls do contain property
which does not exist. The rolls assess
lands in one survey which are included
in another and are assessed there. Thus
the •State pays for the assessment of
land in two surveys where taxes are
paid on it in only one. It has been
found in the Comptroller's Department

that at times Assessors add up the land
in an old survey which they have as-
sessed, find that there is a balance un-
assessed, and then assess the balance as
"unknown" on the unrendered roll, al-
though that balance may now be in
streets, church property, school property
or something of the class which is non-
assessable. In fact, it has been found
that land cut up into lots and blocks
has been doubly assessed as a part of an
old survey, the State and county pav-
ing for both assessments under the fee
system. In several counties it has been
found that the list of unknown land is
copied from year to year by the assessor
and his successor, that in spite of errors
that may exist in the way of conflict-
ing surveys and double assessments this
land is carried and "continues to pay for
the assessment of the taxes on the fee
basis. In one county an Assessor was
found who never made an assessment
of his own, but merely copied the rolls
from year to year, and without correct-
ing them stiil received the maximum
allowance for his county under the fee
system in the way of compensation.
There have been found Assessors who
place on the insolvent list—that is, the
list of those with only personal prop-
erty—the names of persons who have
moved or do not exist. These persons
are credited with certain property and
assessed on it. The Assessors have got-
ten their fees, the taxes have never been
collected and there has never been any-
thing for the taxes to be collected on.

JUST USE CITY DIRECTORY.

That the city directory has been used
in assessing polls on the unrendered list
for the collection of 5 cents apiece was
very well proven not long since when
the name of a man who now works in
one of the State Departments here, was
found on the roll of a county in which
he had not lived in four years, as a de-
linquent poll tax payer. He was paying
a poll tax elsewhere, but the Tax Asses-
sor in his old county was collecting 5
cents from the State for assessing his
poll tax, even though he was not due it.
The Tax Assessor was getting his money
from the State and the State was col-
lecting taxes from the people to pay
for it.

Men have groaned and complained
that because the State pays for the as-
sessment of taxes according to the
amount assessed and not according to
correct taxable values, as it would do
were Assessors on the salary basis, the
Tax Assessors often fix the values of
their property wrongly. Some of thesecomplaints have no doubt been unjust,
but many of them have been just. A
system which allows compensation on a
basis of the amount assessed and nrakes
it possible to collect more for incorrect
but higher values, will lead to abuses.
There is a remedy: Abolish the system
and place Tax Assessors under oath to
do their duty in return for an adequate
salary compensation. Such a system
wTill stop false assessments against prop-
erty which does not exist and never will
exist; it will stop double assessments
and it will stop the assessment of poll
taxes against unknown or imaginary per-
sons for the purpose of collecting 5
cents apiece from the State. The people
pay for these false and incorrect as
sessments and they should realize that
the rolls have been and are being padded
by some Assessors for the ^sole purpose
of getting their hands into the public
till and taking out money which they,
the people, pay in.

WHEN WORK PALLS UPON THEM-

With regard to the Tax Collector on
the fee basis, the Comptroller's Depart-
ment has made this discovery. The Col-
lector collects taxes very diligently until
he gets the $2000, $2250 or $2500 al-
lowed him under the statute as his maxi-
mum. The attraction that the one-
fourth excess in fees allowed him above
the amount of his limit offers is not
great enough to induce him to show
any great amount of diligence in collect-
ing delinquent taxes. To insist that
someone pay a dollar or two taxes, where
he will get only one-fourth, or 5 cents,
or 4 cents, or 1 cent, according to the
amount he has previously collected, is
said not to be great enough to induce
him to run the risk of making angry
some voter who in the next election may
see fit to favor an opponent. He reports
the man who owes the small tax on the
delinquent list. He notes the errors in
making his settlement with the State,
or he reports the property which does
not exist on the delinquent list.

It is insisted that the Tax Collector
is not often spurred on beyond his fee
salary limit point in the collection of
taxes under this very system. Such a
state of affairs refutes the argument
made that under the fee system office'rs
are induced to work more faithfully.
The Tax Collector does not do it for
political reasons. The reward is not
great enough. The taxpayer is a man
of influence, and the Tax Collector, for
his compensation under this system, does
not take the chance. He gets his limit

without doing so. Perusal of the rolls
of any county will show a citizen of
that county the name of some man re-
ported delinquent for this or that who
would pay his taxes for the asking. But
the Tax Collector has gotten his fees and
there is no further inducement. The
theory is dashed to pieces.

There may be some doubting Thomas
who will deny that the Tax Assessor
ever assesses property that does not exist
and collects a fee for so doing. There
may be some person who thinks that
the unrendered list of poll tax payers
which is collected on contains only the
bona fide names and that the State
should pay on them. There may be some
who will insist that Tax Collectors col-
lect under the fee system every cent
within their power. If there be such
persons, there is but one answer to
them. "Come see for yourself. Peruse
the State records but briefly. You will
And that conditions have not been ex-
aggerated. Property that does not exist
is assessed. Persons who do not exist
are assessed. Property is doubly assessed
and collected on. All the taxes that
could be collected are not collected."

GET ALL YOU CAN—MOTTO OF OUR
SHERIFFS,

Feeding Prisoners Profitable Despite the
Howls of Grand Juries.

LOBBY BEFORE LEGISLATURE.

Sheriffs Manage to Obtain Many Special
Favors From Lawmakers—Dallas
Sheriff Gets $5000 a Year
Feeding Prisoners.

(Third Article.)

The Sheriffs of the State have been
unusually fortunate in securing special
favors from the Legislature in the
operation of the fee system. They often
have strong delegations here before
legislative committees; they have gone
before these committees with able
counsel, and it is from them today that
the strongest opposition may be ex-
pected in any effort to substitute for
the obsolete and unjust fee system a
method of compensation which is based
on justice and equality.

Sheriffs are not limited to $2000,
$2250 or $2500 and one-fourth of .their
excess fees, according to the size of
their county, as some other officers are.
All they make above the expenses oftheir office belongs to them. This
money may come from feeding prison-
ers, serving process in civil and crim-
inal cases, posting notices, making ar-
rests, subpoenaing witnesses, conveying
prisoners, making commitments, attach-
ing witnesses, serving in examining
trials, executing death warrants, in
making an arrest for which they get a
handsome reward, or in some other
way.	, #

THEIR OPPORTUNITIES NUMEROUS.

Their opportunities to make money
are many. There have been found
among them unscrupulous ones who
have not failed to take advantage of
any opening in the law they may be
able to find to increase the amount of
the taxpayers' money they may get.
There have been found among them
those who will summon unnecessary wit-
nesses, charge mileage for distances they
have never traveled, and resort to many
other tricks to swell the costs in cases
just to enhance their own fortunes.
The result has been that every account
Sheriffs may file with the State is
scrutinized most closely by the Comp-
troller of the State, and only too often
he has found items which properly
should not have been submitted. Un-
der a recent decision of the Supreme
Court the Comptroller has not author-
ity to eliminate these items where an
account has been approved by a Dis-
trict Judge. Many Sheriffs who pre-
viously had been denied sums by Comp-
troller Lane when he had supposed that
the authority to eliminate erroneous
items was vested in him, have more
lately called upon him for the issuance
of warrants on items that he had every
reason to believe should not be paid and
had failed to pay.

Before turning to practices which
some Sheriffs at times resort to to en-
hance their own fortunes at the expense
of the taxpayers and litigants, consid-
eration should first be given to the mat-
ter of feeding prisoners—which is in
their control. Perhaps there is no other
item which has provoked so much dis-
cussion as this one has done.

From time to time over the State
there has been an agitation to improve
conditions in the jails. There has been
complaint that health of prisoners has
been ruined because of inferior food and
lack of cleanliness. The protestation
has come and finally quieted. The con-
ditions have not been finally remedied.

To strike directly at the root of this
evil and to improve conditions, there is

but one method of procedure which can
be followed. At present Sheriffs are al-
lowed 40 to 50 cents a day, in tne dis-
cretion of the County Commissioners,
for each prisoner they feed. They file
no account to show how much it costs
to feed each prisoner, but only an ac-
count showing the number of prisoners
they feed. They may make, and ac-
cording to testimony of County Judges,
do make, an enormous profit from feed-
ing the prisoners. The county pays the
entire expense, but does not share in
the profit. The result has been that
in some counties the Commissioners
Courts have attempted to take the
feeding of prisoners away from the
Sheriffs.

When the matter of feeding prison-
ers is left to the Sheriff on the per
capita basis, it is but natural that lie
should desire to feed them at the least
possible cost. If he feeds them for less
than the per capita basis he makes a
profit. As a consequence, he figures
closely on the question of food. He
buys the cheapest that can be gotten.
He buys it in quantities to get it
cheaper. He figures on how little he
can feed the prisoners and yet have it
understood that he has fed them. Two
very inferior meals a day to the prison-
er is the result. The Sheriff gets a
profit, the prisoner suffers for lack of
food. The prisoner is in the underworld
and his protest is not heard. If he be
of more influence he makes arrange-
ments to have a special meal served to
himself at no cost to the county. He
has no room for complaint because the
Sheriff is making a profit.

In Dallas County for the month of
November, 1912, alone, the county paid
its Sheriff $1722.80 for the feeding of
prisoners at 40 cents a day for each
prisoner. The report shows that an av-
erage of 144 prisoners a day for thirty-
one days were kept on hand to be fed
at county expense. Inquiry in Dallas
county as to one particular day showed
that there were 186 prisoners in the
county jail for which the county paid
the Sheriff on the per capita basis. The
annual cost to Dallas County for feed-
ing prisoners under this system ranges
in the neighborhood of $20,000.

WHAT ONE GRAND JURY SAID.

This one matter has been a source of
investigation and trouble in Dallas
County for some time. Grand juries
have several times demanded an im-
provement in jail conditions there.
Perhaps one of the most startling of
those reports contains this declaration:—6—

"Under the law the Sheriff is allowed
40 cents per day for each prisoner for
the safekeeping, support and mainte-
nance of the prisoner. Figures furnished
us by the County Auditor's department
show that it costs an average of 14f
cents per day per man to feed the pris-
oners in the convict camps, giving them
three meals per day. Inmates of the
county jail are given two meals per
day and are served with practically the
same class of food as is given to the
county convicts." This same report
comments on the Dallas County jail
kitchen as one "infested with flies."

Senator J. C. McNealus of Dallas
County, recently, in discussing this mat-
ter, figured that the profit to the Sher-
iff of Dallas County for feeding prison-
ers was in the neighborhood of 50 per
cent. This would mean $10,000 a year
or more to him from this one source.
If his profits were only 25 per cent he
would make $5000 a year, or a salary
greater than that of the Governor of
the State or Chief Justice of the Su-
preme Court, without looking after his
many other duties as Sheriff.

Rosser Thomas, County Judge of
Fannin County, and formerly a member
of the Legislature, writes in a letter to
Representative John E. Davis of Mes-
quite:

"I desire to heartily endorse your
stand in the premises. As a member of
the Twenty-sixth and Twenty-ninth
Legislatures, I found that the Sheriffs'
Association maintained a most powerful
lobby in Austin. It has been enabled by
force of its members to procure prac-
tically all of the favored legislation it
has desired. It secured exemption from
the fee bill, and was the only organiza-
tion of officials that was strong enough
to secure such exemption. It has from'
time to time procured liberal enact-
ments as to Sheriffs' fees. It washable
at the last session to procure a raise
in minimum the counties must pay for
board of prisoners from 30 to 40 cents
per day.

FIFTY PER CENT PROFIT.

"President Tilley and nearly every
Sheriff will insist that the allowance
for board barely covers the actual cost
of board of prisoners, but I am sure
they are mistaken when they make
this contention. I am sure I can pre-
sent evidence to show there is 50 per
cent profit in the present minimum of
40 cents per day. A former Sheriff of
our county has stated that there was
50 per cent profit in it at 30 cents per

day, and, making due allowance for
higher prices now of the articles con-
sumed by the prisoners, I am sure that
the cost of maintenance has not in-
creased more than 25 per cent, and this
will leave 20 cents a day profit on board-
ing them at 40 cents.

"Article 1142 of our Code of Crim-
inal Procedure provides the amounts
that the counties must pay the sheriffs
for board of prisoners. I am in favor
of an amendment to this statute which
will allow the Commissioners Court to
let this boarding by contract, or to
handle it itself. 1 know that the com-
missioners of all the larger counties
will agree that the taxpayers can be
saved some money in this way without,
impairing the fare fed to those in con-
finement. I feel sure that it would en-
able our commissioners to save Fannin
County from $1500 to $2000 per an-
num. The sheriffs can hardly object,
for they will insist that they • make
nothing on boarding prisoners,, and if
they can be put on record on this propo-
sition before the matter of this change
is sprung, they can not oppose such an
amendment consistently."

County Judge S. H. Hoskins of Den-
ton County in a letter to Representa-
tive Davis speaks with regard to the
same matter, saying:

"I am writing you in reference to a
matter which from the enclosure I pre-
sume you are interested in. I think
that the matter of feeding prisoners,,
that is, the control of feed and manage-
ment of prisoners, should be taken away
from the sheriffs' department and put
under the supervision of the Commis-
sioners Court.

"I do not mean by this that it should
not be done by the sheriff, but that the
court should have authority to see that
the prisoners have such food and care
as in the judgment of the court they
should have, and have the authority to
see that the sheriff furnishes it.

"I say this because of constant com-
plaint as to class and quantity of food,
and as the law now is no one has au-
thority to give them relief, but it is
wholly with the sheriff and jailer.
Trust you- will look into this, as those
people thus confined are entitled to
proper treatment. I don't make any
suggestions, but it might be well to con-
sider the matter of the county furnish-
ing necessary food with the authority
to see that it is furnished in proper
quantities, paying a reasonable sum for
its preparation. I am sure the present
manner of paying 40 to 50 cents a
day for their board regardless of quan--7—

ti-ty or quality can be improved upon,
be tf for the prisoner and the county."

James T. Stacy of Dallas, in writing
of the feeding of prisoners, says: *'NV
man who has even been sheriff of Dal
las county during the ^ast twenty years
will deny making less than $5000 per
annum from that source." He says
further: "I have no great sympathy for
those who transgress the law, but I think
a law that authorizes the withholding
of one-half the amount allowed for
feeding a man in jail is worse than the
criminal himself. I think the bull whin
and the bat more humane than such
a practice. If the prisoners can be kept
in good condition on less than 40 cents
per day, why should the people pay
more? Was it ever contemplated that
the county jail should be used by the
sheriff as a boarding house for revenue?"

With regard to the feeding of pris-
oners, these deductions should be drawn:

If there is such an immense proiit in
feeding prisoners as is stated, there is
no particular incentive to the sheriff
to clear up the criminal docket, for he
can make money much easier by feeding
prisoners.

If prisoners can be fed for less than
is paid in a humane manner, the people,
and not the sheriffs, are entitled to the
profit.

It is not right to keep in vogue a
system which tempts the peace officers
of the State to deny to any class of
peonle, though thev be criminal, ade-
quate- and suitable food that the peace
officers may put the surplus to the
credit of their bank accounts.

HOW SHERIFFS EVADE LAW TO
PAD THE FEES.

Witnesses Summoned in Two Cases at
One Time Make Two Separate Bills,

UNNECESSARY WITNESSES.

Attorneys Obtain Favors From Sheriffs
by Asking for Many Witnesses
They Do Not Intend to
Put on Stand.

(Fourth Article.)

The fact that the feeding of prison-
ers under the fee system proves to be
more or less of a gold mine to some
Sheriffs is one that concerns the peo-
ple of each county. The fact that there
are avenues for the unlawful collec-
tion of money of the people as a whole

in this State is a question that affects'
every taxpayer. To show conclusively
in what manner Sheriffs may rifle the
public funds and abuse their compen-
sation system, it should first be shown
what fees they may collect in cases,
both civil and criminal. In serving a
warrant of arrest in a criminal case a
Sheriff gets $1, as well as 5 cents a
mile for each mile he may travel. For
attaching a witness or serving a wit-
ness he gets 50 cents, as well as 5 cents
for each mile traveled going and com-
ing. To summon a jury, he requires
a fee of $2. While removing and con-
veying prisoners he gets 10 cents a
mile when traveling by rail and 14
cents a mile when traveling overland.
In serving a writ not otherwise pro-
vided for, he is paid $1. For taking
an appearance bond he gets $1. In
executing a commitment or release the
fee is $1. In a habeas corpus hearing
he gets $2 a day for each day he at-
tends the prisoner. In examining trials
in felony cases his fee limit is $4. In
misdemeanor cases, the examining trial
fee is $3. For executing a death war-
rant, the fee is $50. In serving any
criminal process he gets 5 cents a mile
for each mile he travels.

In civil cases, the Sheriff gets 75
cents for serving the original citation,
50 cents for summoning each witness,
$2 for levying a writ of attachment or
sequestration, $1 for recording an at-
tachment writ, $1 for levying an exe-
cution, 50 cents for. returning an exe-
cution, 75 cents for serving a writ of
garnishment, in collecting or executing
on an order of sale 4 per cent of the
amount up to $100 and then on a
scale which at $5,000 and above allows
him one-half of 1 per cent, $1 for tak-
ing and approving a bond, $3 for exe-
cuting a writ of possession, 50 cents
for indorsing a forfeiture on a bond,
$1 for posting advertisements of sale,
$1 for posting any other notice, $2 for
executing a deed for real estate sold,
$1 for executing a writ of possession
to personal property sold under his
direction, 50 cents for jury fee for each
case tried in the District or County
Court, $2 for designating a homestead,
$2 a day for attending District or
County Court, 5 cents a mile for each
mile traveled in serving civil process.

PROVISION OFTEN ABUSED.

There is a provision both in serving
civil and criminal process that only
the actual distance traveled shall be
charged for at 5 cents a mile and that
while a man may summon a dozen per-
sons on one trip, he shall only charge—8—

mileage for one. This provision of the
law has been often abused and is still
being abused. Not long ago there
were filed in Comptroller Lane's depart-
ment two accounts for two different
cases against the same man. The wit-
nesses were the same, they were served
at the same time for both cases, and
the distance traveled in summoning
them should have been charged only
once. Yet the Sheriff filed two accounts,
one for each case, the account for the
second case being a carbon copy of the
accoun; in the first case. He charged
tho> State $74 for mileage in subpoena-
ing witnesses and other expenses which
he should not have charged.

Instances have been noted where
Sheriffs have charged for mileage when
witnesses were summoned by telephone,
returns being made thereon. Likewise
where cases have been postponed, Sher-
iffs have been able to get orders or-
dering resubpoenaing of witnesses,
which would allow the Sheriffs double
fees for summoning the same wit-
nesses. The practice of Sheriffs charg-
ing mileage for subpoenaing each wit-
ness where they are entitled to this
mileage only once is said to be a com-
mon practice in many sections.

HE WENT THE LONG WAY.

Numerous instances have been found
where Sheriffs mail out notices that
they may be posted and yet charge $1
for posting them, as well as mileage.
One Sheriff, in conveying a prisoner, in-
stead of charging mileage according to
the shortest and most feasible route,
recently charged mileage $46.40 in ex-
cess of the short line mileage for con-
veying one prisoner.

One Sheriff recently charged up 6,036
witnesses at 50 cents each in felony
cases alone to the State in one term of
court. Of this number 1,788 were sum-
moned in seventeen local option cases
against one man. There were 143 wit-
nesses in one case against another de-
fendant charged up. In all he charged
4,550 witnesses in supposed local option
law violation cases. He charged up 50
cents three times for summoning one
man in one case. He duplicated 424
witnesses. He charged mileage for the
travel of 20,453 miles in serving criminal
process and summoning witnesses in one
month alone—an average of 659 4-5 miles
a day for thirty-one days. He charged
for the travel of 2,300 miles on one day
and 2,981 miles on Sundays as follows:
793, 710, 102, 394 and 347 miles for the
respective five Sundays. The entire ac-
count was 36,000 miles. Under the fee
bill he was allowed 5 cents for each

mile traveled. The record seemed rather
impossible.

Before the Supreme Court held last
April that the authority does not exist
in the Comptroller to cut out items
approved by District Judges in felony
cases, the Comptroller cut over $1,100
out of one account filed by the Sheriff
of a North Texas county. Time after
time he cut out false charges against
the State. Since the ruling of the Su-
preme Court he has noted $3,819 which
should not have been paid because of
excessive or erroneous charges. This
includes no questionable accounts.

Not long ago there were fourteen
forgery charges against one defendant.
The fee of $4 for the examining trial
was charged the State in all cases, al-
though only one hearing was had. The
State lost $52. A Dallas grand jury
recently told of one man who had been
jailed more than 100 times but never
convicted. The Sheriff got expense for
feeding the prisoner, making arrests and
summoning witnesses, although there
were no convictions. The Court of
Criminal Appeals recently reversed a
case in which it had been proved that a
Sheriff was paying two men $2 a day
to work up cases for him, the men get-
ting their $2 a day and witness fees for
bringing on trials. The court reversed
the case for failure to charge that the
men who were working for the Sheriff
that he might get fees were accomplices.
One prosecuting attorney has said to
the writer that often he has protested
against the commitment of a prisoner
because the prisoner was ready and wil-
ling to pay the fine. Yet the prisoner
was committed over his protest because
the Sheriff got a fee of $1 for so doing.

Sheriffs charge for the summoning of
hundreds of witnesses who never ap-
pear in a case. One former County At-
torney confessed to the writer at one
time that to maintain his good stand-
ing with the Sheriff he often gave him
an excessive list of witnesses to sub-
poena in cases where he had no idea
of ever using the witnesses. The Sheriff
got his 50 cents as well as mileage at
5 cents a mile for each witness. Sheriffs
have been known to give a defendant
exceptionally good treatment during
confinement in return for an excessive
list of witnesses that the defendant may
name to be summoned by the Sheriff in
the defendant's case. Character wit-
nesses and other witnesses have at times
been summoned ruthlessly and never
put on the stand, while the Sheriff de-
rived a benefit.—9—

PAD WITNESS LISTS.

Under the system it is possible for
a Sheriff to make a trade with a de-
fendant that the Sheriff may provide a
certain class of men for jurors if the
defendant will pad the witness list for
the benefit of the Sheriff. A prosecut-
ing attorney desiring the political influ-
ence of the Sheriff can easily pad his
witness list for the Sheriff's benefit. It
is the old story of the "courthouse ring,"
which is so often heard.

There is absolutely no incentive to
the Sheriff to keep down law breaking.
The more arrests he makes, and the
more times he may deal with a chronic
offender, the greater is his compensiation.
The chronic offender in smaller cases is
rather to be encouraged than discour-
aged from a financial standpoint. The
greater the expense to the county or
State, according to whether or not the
case is a misdemeanor or felony, the
greater is the Sheriff's compensation.
He gets everything he makes above ex-
penses, and the path to riches is before
him in criminal cases. In civil cases
he is paid very much in the same way.
There is an incentive to increase the cost
of litigation rather than 10 decrease it
in calling for witnesses and going after
them, ^uch a system is in vogue, too,
at a time when the cry goes up that
litigation is too expensive.

Investigation of the records of the
Comptroller's Department discloses some
rather remarkable figures. The State
pays the Sheriffs only for work done in
felony cases. Misdemeanor cases, work
in civil suits, ex-officio county service
fees, and out of county work fees are
not. shown in reports to the Comptroller.
The records for the past year show that
for felony work alone Sheriffs of the
four larger counties in the State made
the following collections: Dallas,
$7995.93; Harris, $5007.78; Bexar,
$6423.46; Tarrant, $2233.02. Tarrant
always has a crowded docket in criminal
cases, as do the other large counties,
but the account shadows almost into in-
significance in comparison with them.
The Sheriff of Wise County, since Jan-
uany 16, 1911, has charged to the State
$836.02 for District Court work. The
Sheriff of Montgomery County for the
same period has charged $5289.80. Wise
County this year year had 4506 votes in
the primary, and Montgomery County
only 1802. Wise County is approxi-
mately two and a half times greater
than Montgomery County in population.
Behold the difference in fees charged to
the State.

HIGH COST OF LITIGATION.

These salient points render the pay-
ment of Sheriffs by the fee system un-
desirable.

1.	It is to his interest to increase
rather than decrease litigation expense.

2.	He may, and some Sheriffs do,
charge excessive mileage and for mile-
age a dozen or more times where they
are entitled to it only once.

3.	Unnecessary witnesses may ,be and
are summoned.

4.	The more crime there is the
greater is the Sheriff's compensation.
There is no incentive to keep it down.

5.	If the Sheriff were allowed a sal-
ary and actual expenses, it would be to
his interest to keep down crime.

SOME JUSTICES OF THE PEACE GET
RICH ON FEES.

One Examining Trial and Justice Col-
lects for Twenty-two Cases.

INNOCENT ARE CONVICTED.

Under Law County Attorney, Justice
and Constable All Profit From
Verdict of Guilty—Lose on
Acquittals.

(Fifth Article.)

Justices of the peace and constables
have great opportunities to prey upon
the poor, unfortunate and ignorant, un-
der the fee system. They are limited in
the amount of fees they may collect
only in cities of 15,000 population as
determined in the last preceding elec-
tion on a basis of five inhabitants for
each vote cast. Very often some of our
best cities and towrns have fallen below
a vote of 3000 simply because there was
not a contest. They are today falling
below that vote and the result is that
by this unstable attempt at regulation
the amount of fees their officers may
collect is unlimited. Instances have
been recalled where a justice of the
peace, sitting in the lowest court in the
State, has often made more money than
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
of the State. The fee system was his
means.

First, let us turn to examining trials,
before we deal with the abuses which
have sprung up in the trial of mis-
demeanor cases before justices of the
peace. A justice of the peace gets $3.00
for conducting an examining trial. The—1

0—

constable gets $4.00 or $3.00, according
to whether or not the charge is a felony
or misdemeanor. Under an omission by
the last board of codifiers, the officers
are not longer limited to collection of
examining trial fees in cases where
grand juries later return bills of in-
dictment.

In a Southeast Texas county not long
sinc,j a complaint of misappropriation
of funds was made against an officer.
There 5 were twenty-two counts. One ex-
amining trial was held. Fees were col-
lected in all twenty-two counts: The
justice of the peace collected $63 more
than he was entitled to. The constable
went him one better arid collected $84
beyond what he could justly demand.
In another case where there were four-
teen counts, in another county, fees for
all cases, where only one (trial was held,
were collected in like manner. The prac-
tice is said to be a rather common one.

In criminal cases the justice of the
peace gets 75 cents for each warrant he
issues, 50 cents for each bond taken, 25
cents for each subpoena for one wit-
ness, 10 cents for each additional name
inserted therein, 10 cents for docketing
each ease, 20 cents for each continuance,
10 cents for swearing each witness, 10
cents for administering any other oath
or affirmation without certificate, 25
cents for administering such other
oath with certificate thereof, 50 cents,
where a case is tried by ' a jury, 25
cents for each order, 50 cents for each
application for new trial with a final
judgment thereon, $1.00 for each com-
mitment, and $1.00 for each execution.
Where he prepares papers in an appeal
he gets $1.50, for taxing costs, 10 cents,
and for taking down testimony of wit-
nesses and swearing them, 20 cents a
hundred words.

Constables receive the same fees as
Sheriffs: One dollar for each arrest, 5
cents a mile for travel going and com-
ing, 50 cents for summoning witnesses,
5 cents a mile for travel in summoning
witnesses, 50 cents where a jury is
sworn in, for taking and approving each
bond $1.00, for each commitment or re-
lease $1.00, for conveying a prisoner to
jail after conviction 10 cents a mile
for overland travel and 7+ cents by rail.
There are also some other provisions
which it is not necessary to detail.

Now, with regard to these fees in
misdemeanor cases, let it be clear to
everyone that if there is no conviction,
there is no fee for the sheriff or constable,
the justice of the peace or the county
attorney. Costs in these cases are al-
ways taxed against the defendant when

he is convicted. If lie should escape a
verdict, the constable, sheriff, justice of
the peace and prosecuting attorney get
nothing. The defendant pays them if
they convict. Otherwise they are not re-
warded.

To show conclusively the system which
is used by these officers to work hard-
ships on the poor and ignorant, it must
also be said that the county attorney
gets $10 for conviction in ordinary mis-
demeanor cases. He is well rewarded.
He is oftentimes ready to enter an agree-
ment.

With this system of "pay if you con-
vict and no pay if you don't," it is little
wonder that the constables, the sheriffs,
the justices of the peace and the county
attorneys are willing to convict on al-
most any kind of testimony and that
they care very little about justice. There
is considerable human nature among
them, for they are human beings like
other people.

What is the result? At times they
become accomplices to crime to collect
fees. They have been known to hire
men to inveigle negroes to engage in a
game of craps for the purpose of cap-
turing them, arresting them and fining
them for the fees that they may get.
I dare to say that it can be said that
it not only has been done in the past,
but is being done at the present time.

Men in certain North Texas counties
have told me positively of instances
where these officials would at times when
negroes were chopping cotton, picking
cotton or engaged in some other pursuit,
hire men to work up a crap game among
them. One man told me of the arrest
of forty-four negroes at one time under
such conditions. Another told me of a
constable who actually hired a white boy
to get eight negroes into a crap game,
giving the white boy $2.00 therefor. An-
other man told me of this practice in
the Brazos bottom and remarked that
it was a common practice. The man
complained his constable in lesorting to
such tactics only this year took off every
hand he had on his place in the midst
of the cotton picking season.-

NEGROES EASY VICTIMS.

It is a part of a negro's second na-
ture to shoot craps. Right or wrong, he
will do it. The officer who will encour-
age him in the practice by hiring some
booster to get him into a game is as
guilty as the negro himself. The officer
who will hire a white man to encourage
a negro in such practices is a far more
hardened criminal. Yet it seems that
:L is done.—11—

These officers allow negroes to go free
so long as they have no money. The
moment the fortune of the negro im-
proves because of working conditions,
the sheriff, or constable, most often, the
justice of the peace and the county at-
torney become ready to make depreda-
tions on his small revenue for their own
benefit. I have been told of constables
and justices of the peace who in cotton
picking season, would resolve to make
$1000 in fees each within a certain spec-
ified period during the cotton . picking
season. 1 have never heard of them
failing to do what they started out
to do.

Not only are negroes robbed ruthlessly
by officers in this manner, but the friend-
less man who comes through the village
with only a few dollars and no friends
is preyed upon in the same way. Like-
wise the ignorant white man or foreigner
is often the victim. One man once told
of a justice of the peace and constable
in a certain Texas city, whose compensa-
tion was regulated very much by the
inroads made upon the revenues of dis-
orderly house proprietors. It was the
custom there to fine them at specified
intervals for the collection of fees.

Til the collection of fees through these
shady methods, the constables, justices
of the peace, county attorneys and others
interested have a very peculiar system.
They advise the defendants to plead
guilty, telling them that they can save
thereby a $3.00 jury fee, 50 cents for
the constable or sheriff in summoning
the jury, 50 cents for the justice of the
peace, and other costs which a fight in
the case Would cause.

The negroes or the ignorant whites
or perhaps foreigners are anxious to
save what little they can. ' They do not
know that an attorney of proper stam-
ina can save them any .cost. They listen
to the officers' tale that the fine will be
less if they plead guilty; more if they
do not; that they can save money by
entering a plea of guilty. JThey are" thus
deprived of their little 'money that some
designing and unscrupulous man, charged
with upholding law.and order, may line
his own corrupt pockets. Time after
time where they have had the courage
to retain a lawyer of courage, he has
torn down the efforts of such unscrupu-
lous officers in spite of the plan made
to railroad the defendants to a fine.

If the fine is assessed without a fight
the defendant is often fined $1.00 or
$5.00, or some other nominal sum and
costs. The fine pales into insignificance
beside the costs of the justice, the con-
stable, or sheriff and the prosecuting at-

torney. One case is now recalled where
the fine was $10 and costs $89.50. The
officers get their fees before' the State'
gets any returns on the fine. Oftentimes
the fine is forgotten in the fight for the
fees.

Such a system is indeed a splendid in-
centive to officers dealing with petty
offenders to enforce the law. The more
the law is broken and the more that
they can encourage it, the larger is their
bank account. Such a system is/a dis-
grace to a State boasting of the rights
of the people. It makes justice a mock-
ery and places a premium upon what
may frankly be called "graft.."

SHERIFFS' BIG PROFITS.

In line with the argument of the
Statsman that the fee system should
be abolished and that sheriffs made an
enormous profit in the feeding of prison-
ers, the following excerpts from Dallas
County grand jury reports will be of
interest. The grand jury report from
Criminal District Court No. 2 of Dallas
County says that the sheriff makes from
$12,000 to $15,000 a. year from feeding
prisoners. The other report says that
the sheriff feeds prisoners for 15 cents a
day, while the county pays 40 cents.

Judge Miller's grand jury in a report
filed only Saturday, says:

"The attention of the members of the
Legislature, especially those from Dallas
County, is called to the provision of the
law allowing 40 cents to 50 cents a day
per capita for feeding county prison-
ers confined in the jail. The amount
does not appear excessive when we con-
sider the cost of living outside of jail,
but we have investigated the cost of the
two meals per day and what they con-
sist of, and we find that Dallas County
is paying out $12,000 or $15,000 per
annum more than the actual cost of
feeding the prisoners in jail. We have
before us evidence that the county is
feeding convicts in camp three meals
per dav and better food for less than
one-half the cost of those in jail. We
think the law should be changed so that
each county could board its prisoners in
jail, as well as those on the county road,
on the best terms obtainable. We do
not think there should be any specula-
tion or immense profits arising from
such a source to anyone." •

Criminal District Judge Seay's report,
filed only Saturday, also refers both to
the feeding of prisoners and practices in
the justice courts which it considers rep-
rehensible. Portions of it follow:

"It is not meant by your grand jury
to charge the conditions existing at the—12—

county jail to the sheriff. We believe
he does the best that is possible under
the circumstances. However, in connec-
tion with the matter of the management
of the jail we wish to enter our protest
against the practice of farming out to
the sheriff the task of feeding the pris-
oners in the jail. He is paid at the rate
of 40 cents per day per person, and the
actual cost does not greatly, if any, exceed
15 cents per day per person. Thus the
sheriff is allowed to make a profit of 25
cents a day on every prisoner incarcer-
ated. But the evil is in the practice,
regardless of the profit, whether it is
much .or little or nothing. If he makes
a profit the more prisoners incarcerated
and the longer they are kept, the greater
his profit. We do not believe the pres-
ent sheriff has ever been made negligent
or delinquent by this opportunity to
profit, but so long as the opportunity
exists the sheriff, whoever he may be,
will be subjected to the suspicion of re-
tarding rather than expediting the dis-
position of criminal cases. A sheriff
ought not to be subjected to this sus-
picion, and therefore .it is a practice
which ought to be discontinued as a
measure of justice to him, if for no other
reason. We submit that the feeding of
prisoners ought to be under the direct
supervision of the county judge and com-
missioners; that the prisoners ought to
be provided with a sufficiency of whole-
some food, and that the cost ought to be
defrayed directly out of the county's
treasury.

"We most emphatically condemn the
practice of county officers making ar-
rests in the city for drunkenness and
minor infractions of the law. Such
cases can and should be first handled ,
in the city courts, giving the accused
the right to appeal his case to county
courts should he so desire. The usual
fine for a drunk is from $3.00 to $5.00
in the city court, whereas the costs
alone in the justice courts are usually
from $12 to $15. We condemn the prac-
tice of appointing special deputy county
officers and especially of allowing them
to make police arrests in the city. They
are not on salary—do not have any reg-
ular territory or duties, but appear to
be commissioned to commit 'legalized
robbery' on percentage basis. We con-
demn the practice of such policemen as
turn their drunks over to county officers,
apparently that they may claim witness
fees.

"We condemn the practice of allowing
witness fees to from two to six officers
and charging it against defendants

where witnesses do not appear in court
and defendant pleads guilty.

"We believe that every complaint filed
with the county attorney should be fol-
lowed up and a record shown what be-
came of the complaint, thereby prevent-
ing an officer from making a 'confiden-
tial settlement' with the party ar-
rested."

FEE SYSTEM PUTS PREMIUM ON
CONVICTIONS.

Lawmakers Forgot That District At-
torneys Must Be Just.

BOYS ARE AMONG SUFFERERS.

It Is to Interest of Prosecutor to Send
Boy to the Penitentiary Instead
of Reformatory, Because His
Fee Is Larger.

(Sixth Article.)

In providing a means of compensa-
tion for district and county attorneys
prosecuting criminal cases, the State
has absolutely forgotten, in most in-
stances, that time-honored legal prin-
ciple that the counsel for the State
must see that justice is done. Instead
it has placed a premium on convictions
alone. Where there is no conviction,
the prosecuting attorney is paid not
one cent, unless he be one of the forty-
three now on the per diem basis. There
is nothing to instill him to see that
everybody gets fair play. Instead, if
a man is on trial for murder, he must
try to hang or give a penitentiary sen-
tence to that man to get a fee of $50
or $40, according to whether or not his
county voted 3000 or less than 3000
votes in the last presidential election.
If the man is on trial for some other
kind of felony, he must try to send
him to the penitentiary for a term of
years, whether he be innocent or guilty
and regardles of any mitigating cir-
cumstances, that he may collect a fee
of $30 or $24, according to whether or
not the county voted 3000 or less than
3000 votes in the last presidential elec-
tion. It' is to his interest to force a
defendant into habeas corpus proceed-
ings, for there is a fee of $16 for the
prosecuting attorney in counties voting
3000 votes in a presidential election
and a fee of $20 where they have voted
less. It is to his interest to send a
mere boy to the penitentiary rather
than to the reformatory, if possible, for
the fee for sending a juvenile up is $12—13—

in some counties and $15 in others—
just half of the fee of $24 and $30 pro-
viding for a sentence obtained which
would place the man in the penitenti-
ary. For each violation obtained under
the local option laws in misdemeanor
cases, the fee is $20; for each gaming
conviction there is a fee of $15; for any
other misdemeanor conviction, there is
a fee of $10. Where a man pleads
guilty in local option cases, the fee is
only $10. In an examining trial the
prosecuting attorney gets a fee of $5.
More than seventy-five prosecutors are
paid on the fee basis for district court
work.

Where the district attorney does all
the work, he' gets all the fees. Where
he is assisted by county attorneys he
gets half of them. Where there is
no district attorney the county attor-
ney does the work and gets all the
fees. In forty-three districts where
there is more than one county, the
district attorney gets $15 a day for
each day of attendance upon court and
$15 a day for each day served in va-
cation in habeas corpus cases, examin-
ing tritils, etc. In all cases, the State
allows $500 a year for the district at-
torney.

Let us now see how such a system
operates. It has been indicated that
no premium is placed on justice. That
is but a small part of it. The poor,
the ignorant, the foreigners, and the
helpless suffer.

A prosecuting attorney puts in weeks
at work on some murder case in which
prominent parties are involved; or on
some other case where the defendant
or his friends have money to defend
him. There is a small fee before the
attorney in the end if he convicts.
Counsel on the other side of the table
is getting a retainer of $1000, $2000, or
perhaps as much as $10,000, according
to stories of some late cases. The
prosecuting attorney combats with the
ablest legal advice the defendant can
find. The wealthy defendant goes free.
The prosecuting attorney gets no fee.
He finds himself behind in the collec-
tion of fees. How is he going to catch
up? There is but one way. Prey upon
the helpless. Railroad some poor or
ignorant or unfortunate individual be-
hind the penitentiary walls. WThat the
rich defendant was able to avoid through
influence and wealth the poor will suf-
fer for.

HOW THE POOR SUFFER.

If some unfortunate individual has
stolen at two or three different times

food for his hungry family—such cases
have come to notice in the Governor's
office—there are two or three counts.
The prosecuting attorney has a fee
in each case if he makes the penalties
cumulative. If they become concur-
rent, there is but one fee. Therefore,
the poor individual must go to Hunts-
ville for six years instead of two to
provide $48 or $60 additional compen-
sation for the district attorney, ac-
cording to the past vote of the county.

It is not the intention of the writer
to go into detail with regard^ to this
matter to show how the prosecuting
officials cumulate sentences and rail-
road the poor and helpless. Two or
three instances can prove the state-
ments conclusively.

CASE OF A NEGRO.

In one case in mind, a negro was ar-
rested for stealing an overcoat, en-
tered a plea of guilty, and was given
two years in the penitentiary. Later
it was found that the overcoat had
been pawned by the son of a promi-
nent citizen of the town and proven
conclusively that this son of the rich
had sjtolen the coat. 'The negro, who
had already pleaded guilty for the act,
was brought into the court room and
asked why he had pleaded guilty.

"Well, sah, I knowed youse was
gwine to convict me anyhow, Mr.
Prosecuting Attorney, so I jus' thought
I'd plead guilty and get the lightest
sentence what was," was his reply.

Only a few months ago there were
liberated from the penitentiary three
Mexicans, two of whom were serving
eighteen years and one seventeen years
on charges of burglary. It had been
found that they had been in the
United States but one day when they
were arrested and railroaded to the
penitentiary for the long term of years
on charges of burglary—that they were
not even in the United States or Texas
when the alleged burglary had been
committed. The district attorney had
collected more than $1000 for convict-
ing the Mexicans. Thus was justice
meted out.

THIRTY YEARS FOR STEALING
CHICKENS.

In another case, a negro was sent
to the penitentiary for thirty years
for stealing chickens, the sentences
being made cumulative, that the pros-
ecuting attorney might collect the sum
of $360. Had the sentence been con-—14—

current, lie would have obtained only
$24.

Not long, ago the Court of Criminal
Appeals affirmed one case in which
it was shown that the constable gave
a stranger in the county money with
which to buy whisky with the under-
standing that the county attorney
would pay $2.50 for every complaint
he filed and $2.50 additional for each
conviction obtained under the local op-
tion laws.

In another case, which was reversed,
it was-'shown that a man, who had
been indicted for forgery in one coun-
ty had been paid $100 to act as de-
tective in another county to find local
option law violations for the officials.

The sheriff gets customary fees in
local option cases. The prosecuting
attorney gets $20 for each conviction.
These instances of where men are re-
warded to swear men into the jail or
penitentiary show what means the
prosecuting attorney may resort to in
the collection of fees.

So marked have been these abuses
by prosecuting officers that former
Governor T. M. Campbell and Governor
O. B. Colquitt today both insist that
the fee system with regard to tTiem
should be abolished to prevent any
more travesties on justice. There is
one district attorney in this State to-
day whose cases have been so noto-
rious that the fact that he has se-
cured a conviction is almost equiva-
lent to a recommendation for pardon
from the Board of Pardon Advisers.

It has before been noted that prose-
cuting officials will summon unneces-
sary witnesses to increase their good
standing with the sheriff, that they
may benefit politically. It has al-
ready been indicated that prosecuting
attorneys will collect, like sheriffs,
constables, or justices of the peace,
fees in several examining trials where
they are entitled to but one. Like-
wise, it has been shown that there is
a splendid opportunity for them to en-
ter into conspiracies for the working
up of negro crap games and conse-
quent arrests and railroaded convic-
tions just to get fees.

It wa<= indicated above that by forc-
ing a defendant into habeas corpus
proceedings in some way the attorney
is in a position to collect a good fee
for services. That some prosecuting
attorneys resort to such a practice is
very well proven by the fact that a
recent report filed for one of the larger
counties in the Stat'e showed fifty-

eight habeas corpus proceedings in
the November term. The fees of the
district attorney were $928. Habeas
corpus proceedings may be forced on
by a demand for excessive bail by re-
fusing to bail cases which are plainly
bailable, etc, By forcing them on, the
district attorney as well as the sheriff
and other officers profit handsomely.
It is hard to believe that in one term
there could be reported fifty-eight ha-
beas corpus proceedings in any one
county unless somebody had profit in
view. In the Comptroller's Depart-
ment, it . is said that many district at-
torneys and prosecuting attorneys have
used this method for their own profit.

Likewise, it has above been noted that
there is no encouragement to the prose-
cuting attorney to be merciful. It is
more to his advantage to have the
youthful offender, who has just com-
mitted his first crime, sent to the pen-
itentiary with hardened criminals than
to the State Training School for Juve-
niles, where he may be taught the folly
of his ways, if the attorney can so
arrange it. It is more to his advan-
tage to give the poor and unfortunate
long terms in the penitentiary \han to
give them short terms. It is more to
his advantage to convict a man for a
felony than a misdemeanor, though
misdemeanor punishment might fully
satisfy the demands of the law. There
is nothing whatever to inspire the
prosecuting officer with justice or hu-
manity.

It is true that there is a limit placed
on the fees of district attorneys—$2500
or $3000, according to the size of the
counties. But they are allowed their
limit plus one-fourth of their excess.
These officials do not fail to draw
out of the State Treasury large sums
in excess of their limit, one-fourth of
which they get, and three-fourths of
which the county in which they hold
office gets. In other words, the State
taxpayers put money into the hands
of the Treasurer to be redistributed to
some county where there is lawless-
ness or manufactured lawlessness for
the benefit and to the satisfaction of
the district attorney.

Dallas county's prosecuting officer
during the past year obtained from
the State for felony cases alone $7293.
Bexar county showed warrants of $4360
and Tarrant county $4119. This does
not include fees in misdemeanor cases.
In Dallas county the attorney is State
prosecutor. The same is true in Tar-
iant. The district attorney does the
work in Bexar and the State pays his
assistant.—15—

The collection of excess from the
State for the benefit of the county and
the official both will be dwelt with
more fully in another article.

SAMPLES OF RICH FEES OF OUR
CLERKS.

Cost $3166 to Have Two Make Nota-
tions on Dockets.

RUN UP LITIGATION COST.

Deputy Sheriffs and Other Employes
of Those Who Fatten on Fee Sys-
tem Are Usually Underpaid
and Incompetent.

(Seventh Article.)

In one county of this State, the dis-
trict- clerk recently filed an account
showing the dismissal of 138 felony
cases against five defendants. Under
the law that county having less than
15,000 population, the district clerk col-
lected $1380 for noting the dismissal of
these casas. He collected this amount
without a great deal of trouble, it would
seem, as the cases were dismissed by the
.prosecuting attorney entirely without
prosecution. The full account was for
$1390, the extra $10 having been ob-
tained for some detail in another way.

In one of the larger counties of the
State an account filed by the district
clerk for the last term of court showed
that the district attorney had dismissed
222 felony cases. The district clerk was
entitled to a fee of $8 from the State in
each case, that county having a popula-
tion of more than 15,0007 on the basis of
five inhabitants to each vote cast in the
preceding election, His fees were $1776
in cases in which he must have only en-
tered upon the docket, if they were dis-
missed without trial or prosecution at
the instance of the prosecuting attorney.

Thus in only two counties of the State,
in one term of court, during the past
year, the State has paid out $3166 to dis-
trict clerks in the way of fees when they
earned practically nothing. Thus does
the fee system operate at present it
seems with regard to this officer. Even
the district clerk has temptation placed
in his path. If by any means he can in-
crease the number of felony indictments,
it is certainly to his interest to do so.
If he can by any agreement with some
officer rig up complaints which may be
worthless enough, he gets handsome fees
for practically no work. . It may take
a rather clever district clerk to work the

system. It seems that they must profit
under- it at times with practically no
exertion. To think that in two counties
one large and the other small, two clerks
can collect $3166 in one term of court
for dismissed felony cases alone is rather
startling.

The clerks are paid well for work in
civil cases as well as in misdemeanor
cases. There, is absolutely no incentive
to them, as with other officers, to keep
down expenses of litigation. The greater
they are able to run up the cosf of liti-
gation, civil or criminal, the grater is
their profit, except in felony cases where
they work on a fixed basis. Of course,
if they can bring on any habeas corpus
proceedings in felony cases, it is to their
further interest to do so, for in counties
of more than 15,000 they get a fee of
not more than $8 and in smaller counties
a fee of not more than $10. The clerk
in the district referred to where a dis-
trict attorney had fifty-eight habeas cor-
pus proceedings in one term of court
profited nicely.

It has been noted a number of times
that district clerks in the subpoena of
out of county witnesses all residing in
the same county, issue a subpoena in the
case of each witness instead of issuing
one subpoena for all the witnesses. In
doing this they get 50 cents for record-
ing the sheriff's return for each sub-
poena instead of getting a fee for record-
ing only one subpoena. A recent instance
noted was one in which there were twelve
separate subpoenas, where one would
have sufficed, the clerk's fee being run
up to $6 by this action.

The district and county clerks get
certain allowances also for recording in-
struments. They are usually paid by the
number of words and get so much-a hun-
dred. The number of words they record
they estimate. In most counties there is
a minimum of $1 for filing a deed. In
Dallas county, writes Representative
John E. Davis, the fee for short deeds
is 75 cents, where often 40 or 50 cents
would cover the charge allowed by law.

Not long ago the retiring county
judge of Kaufman county had filed an
instrument in another county. The dis-
trict clerk charged him a fee of $13.
He insisted on an actual cost of the
words and found that he had been over-
charged more than '$4. , There are not
many persons who would do this. It
shows some of the opportunities a clerk
has even in civil matters. If he can over-
charge $4 in recording one instrument,
wThat can he do with hundreds of them?

However, it is not the intention to6—

dwell longer with district and county
clerks. They get money of the taxpayers
without giving an adequate return as
has already been shown above. But their
opportunities for persecution of the poor
and helpless are not so great. It is to
their interest to increase litigations as
far as possible, but that has before been
spoken of. There are many other things
affecting the fee system as a whole
which should be referred to.

In t^is article the matter of assist-
ance wjll be dwelt on. If an officer's com-
pensation depends entirely on the profits
of office he may show out of his collec-
tions in fees, he is naturally interested
in keeping down the expense of his
office as low as possible for his own per-
sonal benefit. What is there to require
him to provide adequate help or to pay:
that help sufficiently?

There is not a county in which the
truth of the statement that help in the
various departments at the courthouse
is inadequately provided for, does not
come home. In many counties it is to be
seen that the sheriff will provide unscru-
pulous men as deputy sheriffs because he!
can get them for iess money than it
would take to get really good men. There
is no obligation on him to pay a dep-
uty an adequate salary, for it is to his
interest not to do so. As a consequence,
incompetent and undesirable men are
often retained as deputies just because
they can be gotten to work for little or
nothing and the standing permission to
wear a sixshooter or some other firearm.

County judges, county clerks, district
.attorneys, district clerks, tax collectors
and tax assessors may pay their first as-
sistants not more than $1200 a year and
others not more than $900 a year. This
is the maximum. If- they can get em-
ployes for less, they may do so.

In one county clerk's office in this
State the attention of the writer has
been called to the fact that the clerk
himself, in his effort to make $4000 or
more a year, paid his right hand man
only $1000. If he pays his chief assist-
ant only $1000, what can the public ex-
pect of the other employes in that office?

The same is true as to the office of
district clerk, tax collector, tax assessor,
or any other official paid by the fee sys-
tem where the salary of the head of the
department depends on how little he can
get men to work for. In the county
where the prosecutions and court work
is so heavy that the chief prosecuting
officer must have several assistants, it
is known that he pays his lawyer friends
$75 a month to assist him. The grand

jury of that county recently commented
on the poor compensation given the as-
sistants. , Indeed, they do get a splendid
salary. The lawyer who can afford in
this day and time to give his services to
the State for $75 a month is hardly com-
petent to see that justice is meted out,
that the laws of the State are enforced,
and the State is not imposed upon by
the well paid counsellors of the law-
breakers.

If the State took the matter in its
own hands and would no longer permit
a system which allows the well fed elec-
tive officer to have about him a lot of
hungry, incompetent or undesirable as-
sistants, in all likelihood, the service
would be improved and better assistants
obtained.

RIDICULOUS FEATURES OF FEE
SYSTEM.

How Officers of Three Counties Get Big
Fees "By Accident."

jWHERE HONEST MEN LOSE.

Officials Pile Up Excess Fees to Get
Their One-fourth and Rest of State
Has to Pour Money Into Few
Big Counties.

(Eighth Article.)

For a moment let us turn away from
the abuses of the fee system to view its
inconsistencies which at times run into
evils themselves.

Let us first look to those whose com-
pensation is finally limited under the
statutes and to those whose salaries are
not limited. In speaking of the justices
of the peace and constables it was shown
that they are limited only in cities of
15,000 population, that population being
based on the votes cast in the last elec-
tion, and that often the best cities fall
below the vote requirement, leaving jus-
tices of the peace and constables free
there to depredate at will without ac-
counting to any one.

But the system is the same with re-
gard to all other officers except the sher-
iffs. They never have a limit placed on
them. Everything above expenses is
profit. They are indeed the privileged
class under the fee basis.

If a county votes 3000 votes in the last
presidential election, the officers must
make a report and must content them-
selves with the limit plus one-fourth of
the excess fees they collect. If the—17—

county votes less than 3000 votes it is
not necessary for them to make a report
and they get everything they make above
expenses. The district attorney alone
must content himself with his salary
limit plus one-fourth of the excess.

If a county votes less than 3000, the
district attorney gets $50 in a murder
case and $30 in any other felony; if it
votes 3000 or more, he gets only $40 in
a murder case and $24 in any other fel-
ony. In a county of the first class the
district clerk gets $10 in a felony case
and in the second class only $8.

In other words, the fewer votes cast
the greater is the compensation of the
officers and the greater are their priv-
ileges.

Let us see how this works: Behold
Denton, Lamar and' Cooke counties. Un-
der the system of computing population
under the fee bill they now have less
than 15,000 inhabitants. They voted
less than 3000 votes in the last presi-
dential election. No longer are their
officers curbed by a salary limit plus
one-fourth of their excess. * Every cent
their officers are able to make above
expense belongs strictly to them. No
longer need their officers report. No
longer do they get the smaller fees.
Their fees increase, their officers get
more compensation, and yet Cooke, Den-
ton and Lamar counties, three of the
richest and most populous counties in
the State, remain the same in popula-
tion. The incentive to the officers is now
more to encourage crime and court work
than to keep it down. The lid is off for
them just as it is for the officers of
some small western county where there
are very few people and even under the
fee system, the compensation is so small
that the offices are hardly worth while.

The fewer the votes cast the greater
is the compensation under the system.
How well does this couple with the con-
stant plea that citizens shall exercise the
right of suffrage each election. Does it
not place county officials in a position
where they will discourage rather than
encourage the casting of ballots? Is it
not to their interest to do so?

Below is a clipping from the Denton
Chronicle showing what such a standard
means to the officers of populous Den-
ton county:

Replying to a query from another
county officer, County Attorney Wilson
has held that Denton county is no longer
under the fee bill law, and that it will
not be for another four years. That is
taken to mean that for the next four
years, at least, Denton county officials

whose fees have been heretofore limited
to a maximum of $2250 with three-
fourths of the excess above that sum per-
force turned into the county treasury
may from now on take all they get with-
out need for either keeping or filing a
fee bill report or of making, any "divvy"
with the treasurer of excess fees.

The law provides that the fee bill does
not apply to those counties having less
than 15,000 population. Now,. by the
census, Denton county has more than
twice that number, but the statute
makes not the Federal census but the
vote cast in the presidential election pre-
ceding the basis for computing the
county's population.

Article 3898, Revised Statutes, reads:

"The officers named (including all the
county officers) in those counties having
a population of 15,000 or less shall not
be required to make a report of fees as
provided in Article 3895 (the fee bill)
or to keep a statement provided for in
Article 3894; the population of the
county to be determined by the vote
cast at the next preceding presidential
election on the basis of five inhabitants
for each vote cast at such election."

Denton county's vote in the recent
election was considerably short of 3000
—-2795, as it is recalled, which makes
the population of Denton county, for
fee bill purposes at least, just 13,975.

The interpretation will be worth a con-
siderable sum to several of the county
officers, notably the county clerk, asses-
sor and collector and during the past
year a few dollars to the county at-
torney.

Again, the fee system affords a sort
of pension system for some former offi-
cials. There is a provision that officers
during the course of the year failing to
collect fees to their maximum but hav-
ing delinquent fees on their list may
later get possession of these delinquent
fees if they be collected. Or officers hav-
ing due certain fees beyond their maxi-
mum are entitled to one-fourth of these
excess fees if they be collected. In other
words, officers may get warrants on de-
linquent fees long after retiring from
office,

Does it afford a sort of pension sys-
tem? This instance would prove that it
does. The recent report of the district
clerk of Dallas county showed that dur-
ing the year- he colletced $5008.12 as
(compensation for himself—more than
$1000 above the salary of the Governor.
In the way of pensions he paid out $24.39
to one man who had been out of the dis-
trict clerk's office eight years and $60.36—18—

to another man who now lives in Okla-
homa, and has been out of office for six
years. The man who has been out of
office eight years as district clerk has
also served four years as tax collector
since and is "drawing two pensions," ac-
cording to Representative John E. Davis
of Dallas county. In the instance of this
clerk, $1870.69 was collected during the
year' and retained in delinquent fees.
The longer he remains in office, the
greater will be the amount of delinquent
tec collections and the greater the re-
ward to himself.

. There is another feature which to the
people of the whole State should prove
undesirable. It is the practice of allow-
ing officials to draw from the State large
sums in excess fees that they may get
only one-fourth of them while the other
three-fourths goes into the county treas-
ury of the county in which they hold
office.

To enhance the fortune of some dis-
trict attorney, clerk, tax collector or as-
sessor, the taxpayers as a whole pay
into the State treasury money to go to
this particular county or that and to
this particular officer or that in such a
way that there is absolutely no return.
The dollar paid in by the taxpayer of
Travis county, whose officers rarely
show any excess in fees, is placed in the
State treasury to be drawn out by some
officer of Dallas, Bexar or Tarrant
county—25 cents going to the officer and
75 cents to his county. The State as a
whole enjoys none of the benefits of the
taxpayers' dollar. A greedy official and
his own county do so.

This is a very common practice, espe-
cially in the larger counties. The tax
collector of Dallas county only this year
for handling $1,030,139.73, made
$5700.80. The State Treasurer of the
State who is annually responsible for
more than $18,000,000 in cash and its,
proper disbursement, not to speak of
millions of dollalrs of bonds placed in the
vaults of the treasury for safe-keep-
ing, gets a salary of $2500 a year.
The tax collector of Dallas county re-
verted into the treasury of his county
in excess $6602.42 to make $2200.80 ad-
ditional for himself. Approximately
half of the excess of $8803.21 came from
the State and three-eighths of it went
into Dallas county coffers from the State
treasury. The district clerk of Dallas
county only this year turned in
$5425.39 in excess after having retained
$1876.69 for himself. Again, money
went from the State treasury and the

hands of the people into Dallas county's
coffers.

Think of collections made amounting
to $1776 by a district clerk in one term
on dismissed cases; $928 collected by a
district attorney for habeas corpus pro-
ceedings alone in one term. Figure that
each of these officers is on a limit be-
cause of the size of the county in which
they hold office. Figure that hard
earned money of the people is being
drawn under just such a system from
the State treasury that officials in large
counties, whose compensation is far
above that of Governors, judges of the
Supreme Courts, or any other State offi-
cers may derive one-fourth benefit! This
is a story the fee system tells.

Figure aside from this that nothing
has been said about certain officials in
this State, who, according to the official
records, have filed absolutely incorrect
accounts and collected upon them be-
cause those accounts may have been ap-
proved by the district judge. Take into
consideration the fact that since the de-
cision of the Supreme Court that the
Comptroller has no authority in issuing
warrants to go behind the approval of
the district judge that a district clerk
has collected 75 cents for recording a
sheriff's account, where he is entitled
to but 50 cents; that one sheriff filed an
account for $23 in which there was an
error of $13.50 in addition alone which
had to be paid because the district
judge had approved it; that since this
decision, sheriffs and other officers who
in the past have had items cut out be-
cause plainly they were contrary to law
have demanded that those items be paid
and have received warrants on them;
that one official demanded payment for
items which had been eliminated as far
back as 1907 under this decision; that
there is no power other than that of the
district judge to hold down accounts of
sheriffs, district clerks, prosecuting attor-
neys and some other officials; that there
is no supervision by the State of charges
made.upon the poor and ignorant who
are hailed forth to the glee of certain
officers in misdemeanor cases; that while
it has been indicated time after time
that the officers are interested in in-
crease of expense of litigation rather
than decrease of such expenses, very lit-
tle has been said of the great amounts
they collect in fees in civil cases and
there are no accurate records available
to show the amounts that they collect
in misdemeanor cases in the justice,
county and district courts'.

What has been said to indicate evils—19—

of the system has not gone into all of
these details. They were some of the
grosser abuses which the public is en-
titled to knowledge of.

FEE SYSTEM'S DEFENDERS ARE
BENEFICIARIES.

Big Men of State No Longer Hesitate
to Condemn System.

WHY CHANGE IS OPPOSED.

Many Who Feel Present Plan Is Wrong
Fear Officers Would Not Receive
Adequate Salaries if Legisla-
ture Makes Change.

(Ninth Article.)

In the past some men have feared to
speak out frankly in opposition to the
fee system in this State, though many
of them recognized its evils. Political
power of the sheriffs, district attorneys,
county attorneys, assessors, collectors,
clerks, justices of the peace and consta-
bles is still an item to be reckoned with.
Yet so flagrant have become the evils
under the fee basis and so noticeable has
become the wrongdoing that many men
who in the past thought the system
wrong are now boldly asserting them-
selves.

The following have voluntarily said to
the writer that the fee system is wrong
and should be abolished:

Governor 0. B. Colquitt.

Former Governor T. M. Campbell.

Comptroller W. P. Lane.

. Assistant Attorney General C. E.
Lane.

Presiding Judge W. L. Davidson of
the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Associate Justice W. E. Hawkins of
the Supreme Court.

Thomas H. Ball of Houston.

J. F. Wolters of Houston.

F. M. Bralley, State Superintendent
of Education.

J. M. Edwards, State Treasurer.

Assistant Attorneys General C. M.
Cureton, C. A. Sweeton and W. A. Keel-
ing.

Railroad Commissioner Earle B. May-
field.

Former Assistant Attorney General
C. E. Mead.

Not a single one of the gentlemen
mentioned was asked for an opinion.
All volunteered the view that the States-
man is eminently correct in its conten-

tion that the fee system leads to abuses
which should cause the destruction of
that system itself and the substitution
of another basis of compensation of all
officials, preferably the salary system.

In this connection it is to be noted
that many former county and district
officials have said to the writer that
they think the system wrong. Some of
those now in office will admit as much.
Those possessing full conscience of their
duty to the State and being unwilliiig to
take advantage of any system whereby
they may rob its citizenship, are willing
to make the admission. They operate
under a system that existed when they
came. Any fees that they may collect
under it which they are not entitled to
or aiiy excessive fees they may collect
they get because of the system which al-
lows it and not because they are seek-
ing to take advantage of the many loop-
holes.

There is but one fear they have—that
the Legislature will be unwilling to al-
low officials adequate compensation on
a salary basis. To them the Statesman
says that it is willing to go shoulder to
shoulder with them in a fight for ade-
quate compensation. It does not b®eve
in making State officials work for noth-
ing. Neither does it believe in making
county or district officials do the same.
It thinks that the remuneration of the
office of Governor is too small. The
same may be said as to other State offi-
cials. That should not be the basis in
determining what salaries should be
paid if the salary system is adopted.
The officials should be adequately com-
pensated.

One member of the Legislature has
said to the writer that his sheriff makes
$10,000 or $12,000 a year, and he thinks
that as his county could not get the
kind of a sheriff it has for any less
money, the sheriff should continue to
get fees. To that legislator the reply
is that the United States Government
gets its marshals at $4000 a year. They
are good men and cover a great deal
more territory than any sheriff. Good
men can be gotten for sheriff who will
not want $10,000 or $12,000 a year. The
Statesman does not object to a compen-
sation for any officer which is three or
four times that of the Governor of the
State. The Statesman objects to a sys-
tem which causes men to abuse the poor,
helpless and ignorant for the benefit of
their own pocketbook. The Statesman
objects to a system which places no
premium on justice. The Statesman be-
lieves in the fundamental principle that—20—

the prosecutor, justice of the peace, con-
stable and many others are elected, as
representatives of the State, to see that
the innocent are protected and the guilty
suffer. It does not believe in a system
where the officials must adjudge every
man guilty to get a few filthy dollars.
Justice should be placed above gold.
When it is not, the Government itself is
no longer one in which equal rights to
all are afforded.

Within the last few days the follow-
ing abuses have been called to the at-
tention of the writer, which have not
been heretofore dealt with:

In one county a negro woman was
arrested for robbery because she would
not deliver a basket of clothes when
the owner of the clothes refused to pay
her. She had a little negro boy when
arrested. He was asked if he wanted to
go with his mother. Officials recognized
that if he did not, he would become a
charge of the county. He said he wanted
to go with his mother. Both mother
and child were hustled away to the pen-
itentiary. Fees were collected on both
convictions.

Que account filed by a sheriff a few
dayw ago in connection with the at-
tachment of one witness in his county
was for $23.60. He turned in an ac-
count and had it approved for $1 for
attaching the witness, and 20 cents a
mile for 113 miles travel in his county
to attach the witness. Granting that
he traveled 113 miles in his county, his
fee should have been 5 cents a mile and
not 20. His fee for attaching the wit-
ness should have been 50 cents and not
$1. He received a warrant for $23.60,
where properly he was entitled to $6.15,
even if he traveled the impossible mile-
age.

In addition to the grand jury report
of Dallas county to the effect that the
sheriff of that county makes $12,000 to
$15,000 a year feeding prisoners alone,
a sheriff of another large county in the
State has said that he makes $6000 to
$8000 a year from this source. Atten-
tion has also been called to an account
for feeding prisoners which was padded
to show more men than were really fed,
a charge having been made for prisoners
days after they were released.

Attention has been called to one com-
munity where the constable and justice
of the peace at regular intervals have
in the past notified proprietors of dis-
orderly houses that they are fined, the
fine being $1.00 and costs, and the offi-
cials charging fees for arrests, convic-
tions and certain witnesses where the

proprietors of the disorderly houses
never appeared in court. Such blood
money is said to be extracted in other
places in the same manner. Under the
law, no man can be tried unless he be
in court. This was not done in the in-
stances spoken of.

One gentleman has spoken of five com-
plaints for alleged speeding filed against
him by one justice of the peace and con-
stable on one trip, with three convic-
tions. The machine never stopped, but
five cases were trumped up. Impeach-
ment proceedings were threatened
against the officers and the other two
cases were finally dismissed.

One gentleman of means protested vig-
orously that taxes amounting to 88 cents
were assessed against a small piece of
property he owned, that he was never
notified of the assessment or that taxes
were due. Suit was instituted against
him, and the fees were put on the books.
It cost him $6.48 to pay 88 cents taxes.

Another gentleman told of $400 excess
being charged by a district clerk in pre-
paring transcript in three railroad dam-
age suit cases. There had been over-
charges constantly in the county, and
in these cases the fees became so exces-
sive that the general attorneys of the
road took the matter up where local
counsel, with more cases to try were
afraid to do so because of the power of
the officials. An actual itemized ac-
count of the work done and the number
'of words in the transcript was demand-
ed. It was found that in those three
cases an effort had been made to charge
more than $400 which was not due. In
this same county, the man telling the
story told of lawyers being afraid to
protest on fee overcharges because of
political influence of the officers them-
selves, who "would get their backs up"
were there a protest.

A man was recently pardoned from
the penitentiary who had been rail-
roaded in less than a day after he went
under custody. Being out of the State
when indicted, he returned at once when
notified of his indictment. He arrived
at the county seat one morning, was
given until 2 o'clock to get ready for
trial when he should have had at least
two days, and given a term of years in
the penitentiary, where he had not a
single opportunity to prepare fo<r the
trial.

"For forty years I have seen the fee
system abused," declared A. Winslow,
an attorney of Laredo.

Sheriffs are allowed passes over the
Texas railroads. It has been found that
the sheriffs in the State who do not—21—

charge mileage at the rate of 5 cents a
mile, Avhether they ride on passes ot
pay fares, is very small, indeed. In
spite of the passes they have, it is said
in the Comptroller's office, that practic-
ally all of them charge mileage when
they travel on them.

In one county the district clerk in his
last report showed sixty-eight habeas
corpus proceedings. His fees were not
less than $1.50 in a single case, and in
some instances ran higher. Eight dol-
lars is his limit in such cases. The
prosecuting attorney was allowed $16 in
each case, or a total of $1088.

Many other instances have also been
called to the attention of the writer.
But it must be understood that all of
them can not be given notice, for a sin-
gle instance is but an example of what
has often proved to be a common prac-
tice. The examples prove the rule.

They have been called to the attention!
of the public with the hope that the
Legislature may see fit in its wisdom
to abolish that which is proving itself
so unwise.

Under the decision of the Supreme
Court the Comptroller no longer has the
right to cut out erroneous items in cases
where the State must make payments.
District judges are often negligent in
approving accounts and allow erroneous
charges to go through. The Comptroller
is helpless. The fees seem to increase
rather than decrease. This should be
changed to give someone an auditing*
power at least.

A system which incites men to wrong-
doing, makes grafters of officials, which
leads to abuses as detailed, which legal-
izes robbery of the people to enhance
some bank account, which squanders the
taxpayers' money is wrong.This book is a preservation facsimile produced for
the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
It is made in compliance with copyright law
and produced on acid-free archival

60# book weight paper
which meets the requirements of
ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (permanence of paper).

Preservation facsimile printing and binding
by

Northern Micrographics
Brookhaven Bindery
La Crosse, Wisconsin
2015