St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-08-25

ally.
That this is a gross abuse no one. eX-
cept the beneticiaries and their depend
ents and the campaign committees who
compel division, will deny; The abil-
ity requisite to run any OF these offices
| is not of so high an order that it could
command third or fourth of what it
now gets if employed in private busi-
ness, either for itself or for others.
But the eXtravagant compensation is
not the worst phase Of this system.
There is constant temptation to make
business. Officers connive to help each
other in increasing the reproducing
| work. The machinery of the courts is
used to swell the fee bill. Litigation is
encouraged; frivolous arrests are made;
contlnuanceS are worked. and all the
tricks used to make work and fees.
Then there is the steady pressure Of
self-interest to so construe every doubt
full clause giving fees In favor Of the
officer. In the case presented by the
objections of the auditor to the bill of
the sheriff it is stated that the sheriff
charged for the service of deputy in
the municipal court. and also for the
same in days service of the same man
in the district court. thus getting two
days compensation for one days work.
The deputies do not get this. They
are paid by the month by the sheriff.
The latter is Interested in seeing tina
his deputies earn enough fees for him
to cover the salary he pays them. He
is further stimulated to sea that they
earn more in fees, because all they earn
above that goes into his pocket as per-
quisite of his office.
This abuse had become so fragrant
that in 1891 the legislature passed an
act putting all fee officers of this county
on a salary, and requiring them to pay
all fees intoathe treasury; but with
Droviso that the act should not take
effect until their successors were elected
and in possession of their offices. The
salaries provided were $1,000 each,
sum that any one of the officers would
jump at eagerly and gladly if offered
them by any business house. But with
this they were not content. When the
venaI legislature of 1893 assembled they
laid their plans to have the act of 1891
repealed. They accomplished it easily;
whether by the fee system or not. we are
not sufficiently advised to state. The
governor was appealed to by men prom
inent in his own party, and by business
men of all parties, TO veto the bill. He
said the bill was bad one, and should
be vetoed. He was disposed to refuse
his assent to it. In spite of his aversion
to the bill, and of the protests of the
people, he signed the bill. As the
| amendment to the constitution pro-
hibits special legislation, there is no es-
| cape except through general bill diff
cult to frame to meet all cases.
a VACATION, NOT A STRIKE.
The Fall River weavers have sug-
geSted a dodge that labor unions will
hereafter find useful when they disagree
with their employers and conclude TO
tie up matters until it is settled. They
| do not propose to have any Injunctions
preventing them from striking or boy
cotting. Or from ''persuading" others to
| Join them. So when the mill proprie-
tors announced a cut in wages the
weaverS got together and resolved to
take a vacation" and twenty-oGd
thousand of them are now on their va
cation.
Supposing that the A. r. U. had taken
summer vacation instead Of striking,
and, instead OF "persuading" those who
wanted. TO take their places not to do
SO, had only urged them to go with them
on their outing, what nice questions
might not have arisen to bother the
learned judges. Clearly, vacations are
not illegal. Ministers take them with
regularity. Lawyers go off on them,
and teachers have their periodical de-
sertions of the grind. Even grave judges
drop the cases taken under advisement,
clear Off the docket. gather up their
guns and fishing tackle, lay in a suf-
ticing quantity of "bait," and betake
themselves to their summers vacation
in the woods
We can imagine the puzzled look of
his honor when the learned counsel of
the railway Or Of the railways receive
presents TO him the petition declaring
that the employees of the company had
taken or were about to take, and had
conspired or were consDirlng to take,
as aforesaid and so on, vacation. to the
serious Inconvenience and damage of
the petitioner and against the peace
and dignity of the said company and of
the said court. and praying that an in
functional order issue commanding each
and every the saiu employees TO fore
90 their said vacation and to refrain
from Inviting any of their fellow EN-.
ployes from joining with them.
One can i'm igine the sedate Judge
looking at the adventurous attorneys
over his glasses and saying: "Gentle-
mtn, this Is a case of first impressions
You have cited me to no precedent. nor
can you find authority for what you ask
Ill any statute. You ask me to make
law, and my reading only informs me
that i. Is my duty to construe law.
or course, in the wonderful changes
constantly occurring in the relations of
men, novel situations arise which are
not OH all fours with any other recorded
case, and 1t is the duty of the court to
apply to them those rules of law which
have the closest relation to them. But I
do not understand that any court ever
made an act innocent in itself an offense
by its OVID unsupported authority.
beside, gentlemen, ii we can prohibit
these people from taking their vacation.
do we not set in motion rule that NAV
return to perplex US? 1 confess that /
myself am somewhat given to taking
vacations. l understand that you gen.
tlemen of the bar drop your work, leave
your clients to period of peace and go
to the lakes or the woods; and doctors
have habit Of giving their patients a
chance Of speedier recovery by going
of fishing, or hunting. or rowing. If
The court were to decide that vacations
were unlawful and the vaeators could
be enjoined from taking them because