The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1871-04-01
An Extraordinary Claim.

| An Extraordinary Claim.
No act of special legislation adopted
by the general Assembly at the las
two sessions of the body, nor indeed OF
any former occasion, seems to us InOr
rcprehensible than their grant of fifty
two thousand dollars to Mr.. Belden
the Attorney General of the State, fo
alleged services in the litigation which
resulted in establishing the constitu
tionality of the law of 1868, assessing
the special tax of one per cent. Mr.
Beldcn prctendS he is entitled by Vir
tue Of Il previous statute to five pei
cent. on all sums realized by the State
Treasury from this special tax, and ac
cordingly he demanded from the Audi
tor of the State, warrants OH the Treas
urer for the moderate sum Of one hun
dred and twenty thousand dollars.
The Auditor having very properly re-
fused to comply with so outrageous Il
demand, Mr.. Belden brought suit to
compel him before the Sixth District
Court of this city. Judge Cooley rem
dered Judgment against the Auditor for
the sum of sixteen thousand dollars.
An appeal was taken to the Supreme
Court, and the same is yet pending,
Mr.. Belden not having pressed it to
IiAl. 1<oN SoIltehN " aplAS DS tIle
judgment to be rendered by the SUI
cation to the Legislature for Il special
act appropriating the sum of tifty-two
thousand dollars as compensation for
the services which he alleged to have
performed. The inference is that he
anticipated a Judgment from the SUI
preme Court adverse to his claim. Gov
ernOr Warmoth vetoed the appropria-
ton in a message which ought to have
convinced the Legislature of the inn
propriety of their action if reasoning
could convince them, but that body re-
fused to sustain the veto, and the bill
therefore became law. Why they
persisted, it is not difficult to imagine.
We presume they readily yielded to
the only argument which such bodies
listen to now days.
The law under which Mr.. Belden
presented this ordinary claim is con-
tanned in the section 13S of the Revised
Statutes, which reads thus:
"The Attorney General shall receive
five per cent. on all amounts collected
by him.
Now the amount involved in the
suit under which the constitutiOnallty
of the tax was affirmed, was one hun
dred and thirty-five dollars, but even
this the Attorney General did not s'col-
lect." Admitting, however, that his
success in the suit might be construct
cd as "collection" of money, Mr.. Bel
den would be entitled to just the sum
of six dollars and scventy-fvc cents
But his prstensions are much greater
than this. He claims five per cent. or
| all sums collected under the one pei
n Ian in hn i..hn nf ~
and Jefferson. Why he limits his fees
to those parishes we know not. Tho
Governor, in his veto message, express
ed the opinion that he was us much en-
titled to his fee on the sums collected in
other parishes and could not under
stand why the Attorney General had
not demanded it. Governor WarmOth
made it very clear that Mr.: Beldcn' IS
claim was entirely unWarrnnted in law.
We should like to know from Mr..
Bcldcn, what it is that the Tax Col
IectOr do, if tho tax has been "coffcct-
cd' by the Attorney General? What
act do they perform when they receive
payment from n taxpayer of the sum
assessed against him? Certainly the
tax is not "collcctcd' both by the At
torncy General and the Tax Collector.
AS Il matter Of fact we suppose that not
one cent. OF tlle large amount Oh money
collected in the parishes of Orleans and
jefferson under the special tax in qucs-
ton passed through the hands of the
Attorney General. And it would be IL
very liberal construction indeed which
would interpret the law as awarding to
the Attorney General, compensation
for Il service nc does not perform. That
officer receives Il fixed salary for his
professional services to the State. His
connection with the litigation alluded
to, was in the usual course of the duties
of his Office and besides, the labor in
this particular case-Frcllsen VS.. Ma
han-was not performed by him. The
Governor employed other counsel who
were paid by Il special appropriation
from the Treasury. But even had Mr..
IseIdcn himself conducted the suit, it
was part of his ordinary duty as law
officer of the State and cannot be regard
ed as an extra service for which extra
compensation should be made. A
more scandalous claim was never pre-
fcrrcd by salaricd State officer and if
anything were astonishing in these
days, we should be astonishcd ut this
onc.-N. o. Bee.
In London, every eight minutes,
night and day, somebody dies; every
five minutes Il child is born. This
,.ity contains MANY rnnnln az