Iowa voter. [volume] (Knoxville, Iowa) 1867-1874, 1870-09-29
Marriage License Fees.

fixes the fee which an official shall
receive for any specific service, that
fee is all he is entitled to for that
service. Now, when County Judges
were legislated out Of office, nearly
two years ago, the business OF issuing
marriage licenses passed over to the
Clerks Of the Circuit Courts, with
precisely the same restrictions and
provisions as when it was in the
hands of the Judges. Referring to
Sec. 436 of the Revision Of 1860 we
find that the fee for "issuing marriage
license and recording same' is spe-
cifically fixed at 81; and turning
again to Sec. 2523 of the Code we see
that "the license shall not be issued
| until the amount of 81 has been paid
into the County treasury"
Now, we ask any candid person,
If this means anything at all, does it
not mean that every man must pay
81 for his marriage lieense?-notsl. %,
nor Sl.30, nor $3.50, nor s., but just
sl--no more aud no less? What other
meaning, on the face of the earth,
can any person get from it? If the
| intent Of the law was that a man
should pay $l.25 for his marriage
license, why does the Code thus twice
specify 81? And if the law fixes tie
fee for issuing said license at 81, does
it not mean that the official whose
duty it is shall issue the license for
81, and not charge any more or less
therefor? Can anything be palmer
and more evident than this, even to
the most causal observer? And if
any official issuing marriage license
shall, on any pretense whatever,
charge n higher fee for this service,is
he not clearly liable to the penalties
provided in Sec. ilG7 Of the Code,
VIZ: "Any officer who wfIf!fYly ssSIrs
higher or other fees than are allowed
by law, is guilty OF "A misdemeanor,
and may be fined therefor a sum not
less than ten nor more than fifty
dollars"
If any Of our readers can have any
doubts on these points, we would
respectfully request them TO call at
any lawyers or Justices office and
examine the sections Of the Code
above referred to for themselves.
But among the novelties introduced
in this County, in the way OF fees,
&c, when our present Clerk Of Courts
commenced his administration, WAS
the charging of extra fees, beyond
the 81, for issuing marriage licenses,
a novelty which Mr.. Bousquet has
kept up with great persistcney, up
to within now couple Of moaths or
so before the election. We are aware
that, in the very peculiar reports he
has seen fit to present to the Board
Of Supervisors he has returned each
Of these licenses as having been issued
for 81. But there is plenty of evil
dence to prove that but very few
persons in this County In the last
year and half and more have got
off with paying only the dollar for
their marriage licenses; and even If
this evidence were wanting, Mr..
Bousquet's own verbal admission to
the Board at their last session is
enough.
Mr.. Bousquet claims, indeed, that
he charged but 81 for the license in
any case--but the remaining - cents,
or 30 cents, or whatever the extra
charge might be, was for atiidavits,
DC. Afidavits' forsooth. By what
right, and under what color Of law,
can Mr.. Bousquet charge extra for
aflidavits in such eases? The law
expressly says Code, Sec. 25l9l that
il he is not acquainted with the age
and condition of the parties, he
himself must stake the testimony Of
competentand disinterested witnesses
on the subject"--aot that the appii-
cant must pay for bringing proof,
swearing witnesses, &C., beyond the
81 fee, but that the Clerk Tor Judge
must himself take this testimony, il
wanted, as part OF his official duties,
as part Of the service for which he
receives the 81 fee. Where Is the
ground, then, for any extra charges /:
Suppose, now, that this were not
so; suppose the official could legally
swear in witnesses and collect "a fee
for every swear" what would hinder
him then from wanting one or two,
or even three or four, or half-dozen
afHdayjts for every license: and tho