The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1894-12-20

5lon, and require them to report to the
legislature the results of their invesfi-
cation with recommendations MS 10 Loo
lsiatlon needed in relation to assessment
ana taxation in this state.
something has already been accom-
phshed III this respect. In my inves-
uSatlon prior TO the meeting of the Twen
ty-third legislature, | discovered that.
under then existing laws. the state was
not receiving from certain interests the,
amount OF money that ought rightfully To.
be paid by them; and that there were
other sources from which the state might
lrSaSohably expect an annual income.
hnese facts were duly reported to Won.
bills were framed embracing the needed
Legislation in relation thereto and were
made laws by the Twenty third legis-
lature. The result is largely increased
revenue from these sources for the fu-
lure. Inc increase during the past year
is S6l,579.95. The source from which
received has been mentioned above. That
amount alone is over $4,000 more than
the entire expense of this office since its
| creation. 40
With proper revision of our laws
results OF great benefit 10 the state ought
TO be obtained. The state of New York
IN lS92 appointed commission to exam
relating to taxation and to report to the
legislature with recommendations ms to
legislation. In 1891 the state of Indiana
created board of tax commissioners
charged among other duties with the fol.
lowing: TO make diligent investigation
ana inquiry concerning the revenue laws
ana systems of other states and coun-
.rles, SO lar as the same are made
known by published reports or statistics.
or can be ascertained by correspondence
WIN oihcers thereof, and with the aid of
information thus obtained, together with
leNperlence and observation of our laws
to recommend to the general assembly
ut each session thereof such amendments.
changes or notifications of our revenue
| laws as seem proper or necessary to rem
cay injustice or irregularity in taxation.
or to facilitate the assessment and collie,
| ton of public revenues"
COST OF CRIMINAL CASES.
In addition to the facts before stated
relating to Official fees, give you the fol
lowing table showing the amounts thas,
nave been appropriated since 1883 for
the payment of fees of sheriffs, clerks
attorneys and detached witnesses:
witness SherifIs.
go, fees. clerks, atty's,
rs, 80 20. ....;a,.;. S4o,o4o 90 S575.OOo 90
Mar g lso 81 to Feb. 90, oeo ~ ooa o ~. w
Mar. !, 80 to FEB. ''''' w ''''0'' w
Mar. l. /, +, 'oi to Feb Feb; eO-'4'S ~ 100000 90
M 81 j., / 'o' to Feb o,o ooo M o,o ooo 90.
S1,131. $50 90 $4,G73,150 90
There will probably be q deficiency of
at least $2OO,O0O in the appropriation
for the years 1S93-95. The average OK
penditure for each year of the past II
years for fees in criminal cases has been
over 100000. For the current year, end
ing Feb. %, 1895, the expenditures for
| that purpose will not fall far short Of
one-third Of the entire net revenues from
all sources for that year. In 1885 the
attention of the legislature was called
by Governor Ireland to this rapidly in
creasing burden on he state treasury.
In his message to the legislature, Jan. IL
of that year, he recommends that these
cost bills should be passed upon by the
county commissioners courts and paid
by the counties where created. He says;
THE payer, the court and all concerDeJy
would then have Il chance to detect err
rOrs or Overcharges. There
seems TO be Il strange inconsistency i'm
allowing the counties TO collect and use
all moneys arising from forfeited bail
quire the treasury of the state to pay
the costs incurred in the main branch Of
the same case"
Since 1885 the expense for fees iH
criminal case has been more than
doubled If the fee system is to continue
and the suggestions of Governor Ireland
should be adopted or even should the
fees accrung to these officers be divided
between the state and counties upon
some reasonable basis, the expenditures
for this purpose would be brought closer
home to the people who have to pay them
and u more rigid scrutiny be required OF
all accounts presented for payment.
1t does not seem possible that this rem
edy can be remedied by simply revision
by the legislature Of the fee rate. AT
every regular session of the Legislature
since 1883, except the last Legislature.
there has been some legislation in reln-
ton to the fees to be paid by the state,
in felony cases, and still the expense for
fees in such cases has greatly increased
each year.
Under the present system il seems inn
possible to confne the expense within,
reasonable limits.
The following letter was received by
me from the auditor of the state Of
Missouri giving, with other information.
the amount expended by that state for
costs in criminal cases for the two ye9Cs2
1898 and 1894. 1t will be seen that the
amount spent for that purpose by he
state Of Missouri is less than one-half the
amount that fees in felony cases will
cost this state for the two years ending
Feb. %, 1895.
Treasury Department OF Missouri,
Office Of State Auditor,
city Of Jefferson, Nov. 20, 1891.
Dear Sr7-The amounts appropriated out
of our state treasury 10 pay costs In criminal
cases In 1893 and 1894 were $525,000, and
$50 900 deficiency.
The total amount OF property assessed for
taxation In the year 1894 II 1904, $50, 1857.
The state tax Is 10 cents on the 800 for
state interest, and u cents on the 800 for
state revenue. OF the state revenue tax
One-thlrd Is set aside and distributed for sup
port Of public schools, leaving 10 cents on
the 500 TO pay all the expenses Of the state
government, Including costs In criminal
cases, Very respectfully,
j. NJ. SEIBERT
State Auditor.
] suggest as Il remedy for this trouble"
the adoption of n system of salaries,
graded according to the population of the
counties to be paid by the state, and that
the counties be required to pay all fees
for attached witnesses.
In my last report to your excellency
the results accruing up TO that date
IL