The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1895-06-10
IT is SHAM REFORM
Allan L. McDerIhott's Letter
to the Governor on the
Recent Legislation.
NOT MUCH ECONOMY IN THE BILLS
The Chancery Clerk Shows How
$4,000 a Year Could Be
Saved to the State.
NOT MUCH ECONOMY IN THE BILLS


George T. Werts a letter concerning two
of the bills passed by the Legislature last
week which are now in the Governors
hands awaiting his official action. In this
letter McDermott says
Il beg to submit for your consideration
a rev suggestions relative to the pro
visions of Senate bill No. S59, which has
now awaits your action. The bill contains
| two propositions affecting the Clerk in
Chancery, as follows
I. BY Chapter 59S of the Laws of 1871
! it is provided that the Clerk in Chancery
shall receive reimbursement of such mon
ey as he shall, with the approval of the
| Chancellor, eXpend in arranging, docket
ing and labelling the papers in his office
bill @ now under consderation os proposes
that. this work shall hereafter be done
| by the clerk without compensation and at
II. The second section of the bill pro-
VideS that all services rendered by the
clerk in suits and proceedings commenced
| on behalf of the State to enforce pay
ment of taxes by corporations or to en-
| join corporations from doing business, be-
| cause of the non-payment of taxes. shall
be rendered by the clerk without
| charge
| WILL POSTPONE REAL REFORM.
These propositions, Mr.. McDermott
says, have been hailedfb the Republican
| press as being reformatory measures cal
| culated to save large sums of money to
| the public, and as they do not upon their
| face indicate the amount involved, it is
quite possible that they may be given
| undeserved credit which will postpone
real reform in the premises for many
years.
This remark will also apply to Senate
bill No. 1858. which apparently reduces the
cost of official searches. but which will
not really decrease the revenue of the
Clerk, of the Supreme Court. Against
| these measures he submits proposition
which he declares is not moved by any
selfish motive adding
THINKS IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
So far as Senate bill No. 359 is con
cerned, I do not believe that it can apply
to the present Clerk N Chancery under
our Constitution; but If this is not so, the
balance of my term will amount to only
about S1,000 While the annual saving
under my successors will not amount to
oyer 1,50O The amount IS so inconsider-
able that statement of It should be sUf-
ficient to convince that my views are not
based, by a hope of future revenue; but
IN order that ] may occupy ground free
from the possibility of such an intina-
ton, I :ntrude the otherwise irrelevant
| could not occupy the Office another
term If I should be in political sym
pat ny with the 7Goverlaos who will APP
point my successor would decline a re-
appointment; and I would be compelled
to pursue that course f. n pursuance
of the civil service refornato.v propo-
forms, my retention Of the office should
be insisted npon by a I,epilbiean or
Populist Governor
His first obje,rion to bill, No. s-9, he
says, applies with equal force to No.
$685. as tolloms:-
CALC il LArlGo To DI:rr;yi..
They are calculated to deceive the
N a n r 1y11f1 re rf.
Court and the Clerk in Chancery have
foundation for ' lain Is this 5 erect I IN IN
the next Republican State platform AS
matter Of fact. the bills are a Jumble
sufficient money to enti!ie them to 4
place on the statnte book, and it does
not require 4 close. scrutiny Of their lines
pose to retain for these Offices their pres
ent large incomes in orler that they may
be awarded as political prizes by the
being overbalanced by hope. that the
apples may fall on the Republican side
of the fence. In, plain English the bills
the fees of overpaid officers" inexcusa-
Separate objection to bill No. s5e is
BENEATH THE STATES DIGNITY.
Its provisions are unbecoming the dig
nifty, of State. The Clerk in Chancery
renders certain services to tg7ants and
ceive certain specified fees. TO say that
he shall, for the privilege of collecting
render certain other and similar services
without compensation to the State is to
impose the cost OF conducting State liti-
cation upon parties to private actions.
The proposed legislation says to the
clerk, Because you collect from private
500ri to the you stase ea wSou fsade ehaTe s1Tees
Apart from the absence of dig
nifty in this proposition it is appar-
ent that it is neither more nor less than
a bill to impose the cost of State litiga-
ton upon litigants in eases to which the
State is not party. If the fees received
services rendered them by the clerk, plus
the services rendered the State. it is plain
to pay for. more than they receive. It
would. / submit, be equally elevated po-
ltical economy to provide, that the Clerk
in Chancery should, from the fees fixed by
law as compensation for specified ser
vices, annually contribute a certain
amount toward keeping the roof of the
If, in the case of A vs.. B. I receive
ten cents for filing a paper and I am to
the privilege of collecting this fee, the
one who pays it is really taxed, not for
services rendered him as a litigant, but
for the benefit of the public at large. The
State of New Jersey cannot afford to
grow, small enough to. say to the Clerk
court. "Yon shall indirectly or directly
pay the State for the privilege of col
lecting fees from litigants.'' A great State
cannot afford to adopt a small policy If
the fees charged litigants are too large
they should be reduced.
In thus presenting objections, Mr.. Nc
Dernott says he does not desire to be
understood as urging negative action
upon these bills, for such action would
become the subject of misconstruction.
and the good people of New Jersey would
be informed on stump and in partisan
press that Democratic Governor was
of ito
official fees.
THE EVIL AND THE REMEDY.
Leaving now the consideration of the
proposed legislation, which is a worth
less deception. he asks that he may
present "the old law, the evil and the
remedy"
The fees received by the clerk of the
are, when considered in their totals, ex-
cessve compensation for the services
rendered by these officers, and equally
efficient service can undoubtedly be OBJ
tanned for less. This being So sound
political economy demands a reduction
of these compensations 1t is the right
of the officers, who sell their services to
tain. It is the duty of the State to Sc
cure these services at the lowest COM
pensation for which they can be eff
GENTLY obtained. Now if the judicial
system of the State were self-supporting,
the necessary solution of the question
would be found in liking the charges to
litigants at figures which would aggre-
gate a proper compensation to the clerk.
But our courts are not. self-supporting.
S,l,o faar raa III for tha epf-vireS rf