The evening Argus. [volume] (Rock Island, Ill.) 1861-1871, 1865-12-18

the probate court. This is in accordance |
with previous custom, but we think NO such |
allowance ever ought to have been made, or
any such practice continued. The county |
clerk gets large fees for doing the probate
business, every item of labor he performs be- |
ing provided for in the fee bill, and must be
paid from the estates settled-exceptt the bare
keeping of what is called the general rec
ord"-a book in which is recorded the open
ing and closing of court, &C., &c., a very
small affair to keep and requiring very little
time. For every other book. such as the rec
ord of Wills, accounts current, bonds, &C.,
&C., fees are provided, and when the fee bill
was made the legislature, no doubt, thought
that county clerks could well afford to keep a
memorandum of the opening and closing of
court without charge, considering the high
fees allowed for everything else. The idea
was to make the probate court self-sustain-
ing, except the judge, and he was wisely re-
refused fees thus removing from him any
prejudice towards parties by the temptation
of fees. But, in 1855, the county clerks, al
though the best Offices in the counties, were
SiCcNy AAOiS AOSos ohu ehcS pSASuoOS0 WV
legislature to pass law giving the supervis-
ors permission to allow any sum they pleased,
not TO exceed 50 a day, for keeping the gen.
eral record. The result was that Mr.. Comet,
for long time. got exactly the same yearly
pay for keeping that book, tbesides all his
prabate fees, which were large,) that the
county judge got for his entire services
Our board of supervisors. after seeing how
the thing worked, persuaded Comet to come
down to 50 day, aad since that time the
county clerk has regularly received from the
peoples pockets 81 for every day the probate
court has been in session-simply for keeping
this memorandum of the opening and closing
OF court, &c. &c. This is wrong and ought
not to be permitted any longer.
During the late canvass for county officers
we wrote to somo 90 or more county clerks in
this state, for information as to the practice
In their counties, on this subject, and We
have official answers showing that, in some
counties they do not allow the clerk anything
for keeping this record In others they allow
81 day; and in others > day, and in q
few So day.
The matter rests wholly with the supervis-
ors whather they will allow anything or not
They can allow nothing, or any sum from
| one cent to three dollars, in their discretion.
We thought, with the legislature which
made the tee bill, that, in consideration of the
enormous fees of the county clerk, he ought
not to be allowed anything for keeping this
record book,-and the people will remember
that Burton II. Cook, during the late can
VaSs, publicly proposed, through the columns
never make any charge for keeping this rec
| ord book.
| We do not wish the board TO do injustice TO
| any one. but we really think that no pay
| should be allowed, in future, for keeping this
record book, for the reason that none was
originally intended. There is no law requir-
ing any, or at least nothing above the nomn-
/ al pay of one cent and the office being the
! fattest one IN the county the people ought
/ not to be taxed for this service. The order
/ allowing 81 day oughs to be rescindsd ss
soon as the board meets again.
| The board very properly rejected bill for
unauthorized repairs on the court house
/ 4 resolution was, sometime ago, passed by
| the board, giving notice that, in future, 10
| bills would be allowed for such things, unless
| the work was previously ordered by the
| board. Let the supervisors not back down
| from the stand they took on this subject.