Birmingham age-herald., 1895-02-26
THE FEE SYSTEM.

ON THE SUBJ ECI. a
 To the Age Herald:
 have no desire to be chased among those who are fond of newspaper notoriety; my history in Birmingham directly refutes any such inference, but as have attempted to right what consider 0 wrong upon the tax payer, hope you will bear with me again.
 The day that my article appeared in ref erence to fees my telephone was kept busy answering parties who just wanted to re- turn thanks for the article referred to, and hundreds said the same thing personally on the streets, but batting me on the back is all they essayed to do. IT they would put their shoulders to the wheel this impo- sition could not be enforced.
 Now, I do not desire to be placed in the attitude of making war on the present. hold up their hands, for they have their hands full to keep this city going on 50- cent tax. Verify believe we have the very best material composing the mayor and board of aldermen; they are strong men, business men, many far above mediocrity, and certainly above reproach, but the best of us sometimes make mistakes, and to say that the present municipal government has made at least one egregious mistake can- not, believe, be gainsaid. Now, from fancied or real grievances great opposition was manifested against what was known as the Fox administration, and the people arrayed themselves in solid phalanx, thor oughly organized and entrenohed in the ditches of reform, and attacked them from every ward in the city, and did .whatf the principal reform banner was, "Con. solidate the offices, make the offices one of salaries, and if fees (of course, legal ones) had to be paid let them revert to the city. !" This was promptly done, and the tax col- lector must have known when he stood for office that his salary would be S1200; but before the smoke of victory had cleared away this first reform step was wiped out as it were-salaries abolished and the Fox system of fees inaugurated, thereby doing for which we fought. Now, that was mistake. If $1200 salary would not hold so competent 8 man as MT. Eustis and no 'one as competent would do the work for S1200, then make it $1500, or even S1s00; but stick to the salaries. I am credibly in- formed that MT. Eustis will get as much or more, compensation per anpum in fees as his predecessor did, not counting the $1 fee complained of, which MT. Warnock never received for serving notice to the tax fee reverted to the city, even though wrong fully imposed, imagine you would hear but few complaints, for the people often- times wink at the methods of raising reye- nue when all are benefited thereby; bat when it goes into the pocket of the in- dividual the reverse is the case, and um- brage is taken. The notices left at my office on the 18th of February were all dated February 1. No demand was made for the payment of the taxes; the t. ia. was sim ply handed in Monday, the 18th. com plained to the. tax collector and mayor, and found quite number in the office on the same mission, one among tue number an attorney. Their authority was asked for, and when furnished it confirmed us in the opinion that they had no authority to col- lect the fee. So op the night of the 20th instant an ordinance was passed amending certain sections in conflict, so that it would cover the matter at issue. A law passed on the 20th could not be retroactive and cover the document dated February and de- livered about the 18th.
 Now I asked the editor of the AGE-HER- AID to enlIghten his readers as to the justice of this demand, and he very prop erly "referred the matter to the tax col lector with power to act" but as yet my inquiry has not been answered, i. G., is 1t lawful for us to pay the $1 fee? If so, then will cheerfully pay it for the londlords l represent. If the party in power has vio- lated pledge made to the people to have none but salaried officers, then they should redeem that pledge. h my opinion if sal aries had been in force this $1 fee would never have been heard of at this time of the year.
 Now one word more and I am done. If some are so unfortunate as to incur the B fee March for advertising, would it not be well to look to the interests of 1.-the masses of the common people' and get the $3 charge reduced, as we are informed that the county pays not over $1 35 for such ad vertising. w. B. LEEDY. Birmingham, Feb. 25.