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

of 1859 and 1870. by which delinquent
tax payers could be sued He col
lected a large amount, deducted 10 per
cent, which he had kept as his COM
missions. The question of retaining
these commissions was never raised
on him. There were many att orneys
in the same Tx. Section A of cOnsti-
tuition, as TO limitations on grants for
extra compensation, provides for
them only when they arc not provided
for by pre-eXisting laws. Article 257,
revised statutes, says, "when-
ever district or county at
torney has collected money
for the state, or for any county, he
shall within thirty days, after record
ing the same, pay into the treasury of
the state, or of the county to which it
belongs, after deducting therefrom,
and retaining therefrom the commits
sions allowed thereon by law" As
this merely fails to fix rate, section
"A of the constitution can not be APP
piled in this case.
Again. in cases where district and
county clerkydo extra service for the
state, and the state is cast in
the suit there is no law giving them
commissions. This ought to be
remedied. The district attorney, too,
when theState is cast, has to work for
nothing, the same as in misdemeanor
cases.
The provision that the county at
torney shall have 10 per cent commits
sions, was under the law of 1876, be
fore the adoption of the revised
statutes.
Mr.. Clark, who was one of the revi-
sors, says it was left out by mistake.
If it had not been there would be no
question as to the right of the attor-
ney. / know that 10 per cent is not
excessive in the case, considering the
expense and amount of work done.
On single large amount it would be,
but the work has gone on for years
and 10 per cent is not too much.
THE speaker announced that he
had signed the bill which provides
for an experimental agricultural
school, under charge of the Agricul-
tural and Mechanical college at Bryan;
and substitute for senate bill No. Ia
for the payment to the university, OF
certain debts due the university out
of one-half of the proceeds of sales of
public lands not belonging to the pub
lie free school fund.
Mr.. Durant argued in favor of the
bill, and that the claim should be
allowed as a matter of the state
honor. The government is composed
of individuals, and individuals make
states. Justice demanded that they
should be amply remunerated.
Mr.. Barrett propose TO discuss
this matter in no spirit of animosity
or ill-will. He recognized the fact
that the county attorney of Travis
has performed valuable services to
the state of Texas, and recognized
further, that by reason of defect in
| the law he has not received the COM
pensation that he is justly EMIT ed
to, on account of those services
1 am not here to take the side of the
attorney general or of Mr.. Moore, mol
for the purpose of discussing this
matter from a moral standpoint
The object of the legislature is to en-
act such laws as are right, and in
| conformity with the state conStitu.
| ton. Nothing would afford me more
pleasure than to allow compensation
for efficient services; in this case
can consistently do so by giving my
| vote.
AS 1 understand the question it is
| whether we have the privilege. con
stitutionally, to enact a law for his
benefit for services required 10y law
but for which no compensation
is provided. We have a law as tt
| justices in examining trials doing
certain work, yet | don't find any
syllable in the statutes that provides
| for their compensation for such ser
vices. The law requires certain WORK
of county attorneys, yet there is ne
law that gives them one cent fol
| valuable and arduous services.
As to the constitutional inhibition
You say pass law that will apply tC
all alike. The gentleman from Walker
| in his zeal. referred TO constitutions
objections which were made as quib
bles,
Pre-existing laws require county at
torneys to bring suits, but has not
provided for their compensation. Yet
the constitution stands and warns Us
not to pass any such law.
In conclusion, say 1 am for moth
ing except what by responsibility Of
my oath to support the constitution
of the state of Texas / am sworn tC
obey. l would gladly compensate Mr.
| Moore if i could consistently do so
For the reasons have given l pro
pose to vote against this bill.
| Mr.. Stout read section A of article
3 of the constitution, and the article
| of the revised statute referred to, arti.
Gle PSI, and critically argued theil
| bearings on the case, and made &
strong argument in favor of thu
claimant. There was no appropriation
| to be made out of the treasury-nont
was asked for. He made the point
that County Attorney Leasing of Ton
Green county had been recognized a:
entitled to the same kind of commits
sions, and said there were other attor
neys interested in the matter. Tht
records show that the state brought
the suit against the county attorney
| He read from the reports to show that
Mr.. Moore had brought sixty-foul
cases, in most of which he had col
lected the money.
Mr.. Scott said he had taken tn,
oath with a reservation. The con
stitution was made by men at time
when they could not anticipate so as
to provide for all such cases. The
supreme court has virtually declared
that the claim is just. / shall vote
for what 1 consider right, constitu
ton OF no constitution. / shall VOTE
for this bill.
Mr.. Brown argued against the bill.
The attorney general was the consti.
| tutional adviser of the state govern.
ment. Mr.. Moore had not consulted
that officer and had thus gotten in the
predicament he now is. Let him gel
out of it. He would never support
any retroactive law of of this kind.
Mr.. Roseuthal said the time II the
| legislature was so valuable that i,
would have been better perhaps tC
have passed the bill at once and been
done with it. So he moved the pre-
vious question.
Speaker-The question is ON the
adoption of the substitute of the gen
tleman from Collin. LOst-ayes 81
nays 81
Mr.. Acker was allowed to retire, al
his request, before voting as he was
disqualified.
The bill passed to third reading by
a vote of 81 ayes to 80 nays.
Messrs. Acker and Barrett and
Mathews presented petitions on pro-
hibition. Referred.
By Mr.. Stout: Remonstrance from
Navarro county against the creation
of Richland county. Referred.
Mr.. Frank: 10 emancipate Joseph
Carroll. minor. Referred.
Mr.. Ethridge: Resolution of thanks