The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1883-03-01

SECTION /. Be it enacted by the
of the state of Texas,
That title II, chapter 3, of an act en-
titled AN act to adopt and establish |
the Revised Civil Statutes of the |
state of Texas, passed February Fl, |
1879" be amended by adding an addi- |
tiOnal article, to be numbered 257a, |
tO-Wit:
ARTICLE 257a. In all suits in the
name of the state, the district or coun-
ty attorney of the proper county shall
be entitled to commission on all
money collected by him, as follows:
Ten per cent on the first one thou
sand dollars; five per cent on all sums
from one to five thousand dollars, and
two per cent on all sums over FIVE
thousand dollars; provided, that in
all suits brought by the attorney gen
eral to collect money belonging to the
entire state, the district OF county
attorney shall not be entitled TO any
commission.
Mr.. Mckinney being entitled to the
floor. (the house having adjourned
pending his remarks the day previ-
Gus. combatted the proposition of Mr..
Finch that to pass the bill would, in
effect, give TO Mr.. Moore fees for col
lections made by the attorney gen.
eral. and that the bill should, as
suggested by Mr.. Hill. be entitled an
act for the relief of Z. T. Moore.
Mr.. Mckinney said that he had not
intended in his previous remarks TO
cast any reflection upon his friend aud
colleague from Collin. He read Ger
tificate of the district clerk as to Mr..
Moore's services to the state, the num-
Der of executions issued by him and
collections made for which he had re-
ceived no compensation. He also
read other documents which he said
met the point of Mr.. Finch that COM
missions were claimed by Mr.. Moore
on judgments not obtained by him.
Mr.. Moore, he argued, had right, as
any other citizen has, to petition the
legislature. 1t was the right of every
American citizen. The constitution
says the district or county attor-
neyS shall control these suits,
and the law provides that the county
attorney shall retain commissions on
the amounts collected by him. Be
cause the statutes failed to say what
these should be, by fixing a rate. was
no bar to the rights of the petitioner
before the legislature. The constitu-
ton was not in the way. He read
the constitutional provisions that the
legislature shall provide for the COM
pensatiOn of its officers. The district
court decided that Moore had the right
to conduct the suit in the district court,
and the supreme court did not deny it
further than in effect to declare that
as the statute did net expressly state
what commissions should be allowed,
there was no remedy except through
the legislature, and that without this
the commissions must be returned.
There was not besides, as argued by
Mr.. CravenS, any question of extra
compensation in this case, as there
was no original compensation in
Yolved.
Some seemed to think that it Will
make statesmen of them to save the
state what Mr.. Moore claims is due
him, although he simply asks us to do
what the constitution says we shall
do, compensate him for services rem
dered to the state. The memorial was
neither a matter of grace or gift from
us to one who simply comes
before us in the dignity of an Ameri-
can citizen and asks us to do what we
ought to do for him. This was a sort
of picayune craftsmanship that would
tarnish the fair fame of the state.
This was an honest, just and lawful
debt, and Just as l pay my honest
| debts myself, propose that the state
of Texas shall settle fully with her
citizens.
In answer to interrogatories by
Mr.. Moore, of McLennan, he argued
that the bill was not retroactive in
the meaning of the constitution OF an
eX post facto law, whereby it would
affect the rights of her citizens, as
the term ex post facto only applies to
criminal matters. Hence, the pro-
vision in the constitution referred TO
| did not inhibit the legislation pro-
posed in this bill.
1t was well known to members why
these suits were brought in Travis
county. Mr.. Moore brought no suit
against the state, but simply made a
motion in the district court that he be
allowed to conduct the suit in that
court, as he had the right to do. The
supreme court said the district court
did not err so far as concerned the
right of Mr.. Moore to enter
this suit, but that as for ar
ticle 257, revised statutes, it was in
operative as to his case. The expenses
of these was heavy and the duties ar
duous. He had to travel and find
property liable to execution. As to
complaint of the amount involved,
don't care. if it was fifty thousand
collars it is a just claim and ought to
he paid. 1t was the work
of three men for two years.
England would expend millions in
vindication of the rights of a few of
her citizens; the time of this house
was well spent in indicating the right
of Mr.. Moore and doing him justice.
He read from the report of Comp
troller Brown that Moore was the
right officer to make these collections,
and testifying to the zeal, integrity
and ability in doing so. He don't ask
to be paid out of the treasury, but
simply that we pass the act. 1t was
an act, mainly, it is true, but not
solely in the interest of
this man, but it was also
in the interest of many of the
county attorneys Of the state. JUS
tice is the cornerstone of govern
ment. 1t may wait and linger, but
its principles are eternal.
Mr.. Moore, of Mcclellan - You
failed to answer my last question. If
it was intended the county attorney
should have commissions in civil
cases, would not the law have so ex-
pressed itp
Mr.. McKinney-The court decided
he must 60 before the legislature.
(To Mr.. Upton-He asks relief un-
der a general law. This is a general
law-not one for the relief of any
particular man. There is nothing in
the caption about E. T. Moore. That
was an amendment proposed TO the
caption by Mr.. Hill. The bill only
hadpenS to affect Mr.. Moore more
than others.)
ITO Mr.. Hazlewood-It don't
come within the function of
of a retroactive law Go Mr.. Nash !:
There are other county attorneys that
will be required to return commits
sions. 1t don't affect rights accrued
under other laws. Mr.. Moore only
was pitched upon in the argument, so
l took his case.)
Mr.. Hill said he would not have
participated in this discussion but
for the shape given this debate by the
friends of the bill That no pressure
could induce him to vote for this bill,
which he believed clearly in conflict
with the organic law which inhibits
the legislature from granting, by ap-
preparation or otherwise, any amount