The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-09-01
SAVES THOUSANDS A YEAR
The Author Of the Fee Bill
Explains Why 1t Was
Drawn Up.
Assemblyman Dodge Is Confident 1t
VIII Be Declared Con-
stitutional.
OAKLAND OFFICE SAN FRANCISCO CALL
9O8 Broadway, August 81, {

9O8 Broadway, August 81.
The constitutionality of the act regulat-
ing the fees of Justices and Constables is
at present interesting every one of these
officials in the State. Recently Van r.
Paterson, ex-Supreme Justice, was retained
by the officials to argue their case before
the Supreme Court. He expressed himself
in print as being confident that the act is
unconstitutional.
AS the act hes saved Alameda County
$40, 900 during the present year, the prog
ress of the test case is being keenly
watched by taxpayers in this county. The
chairman of the Committee on County and
Township Governments of the last Legis-
lature was Assem- blyman c. G. Dodge of
Oakland Mr.. Dodge is practically the
author and father of the measure and to-
day he was asked his opinion regarding
the act and its effect. After referring to
the general popularity of the measure and
the immense amount it saved each county
Mr.. Dodge said:
was very much struck with recent article
in THE CALL stating that the number of tramps
in the County Jail had decreased one-half
since the new fee bill went into operation and
also that Mr. Van r. Pa terson had said the act
was unconstitutional i am confident the act
think there is anything in the convention that
it is unconstitutional, because it requires the
District Attorney to approve the issuance OF
warrants of arrest before the fee therefor shall
be allowed. But even assuming that pro-
vision unconstitutional the act would only be
so to that extent and the remainder of the act,
including the limitation in the amount OF fees
earned and the respective charges in each case,
would stand precisely as it is at present and it
would make but trivial difference to tax
payers. 1t is a well-settled principle of law
lions oil Ncin
does not render the remainder of the act TN
constitutional.
1t is an entire misconception of the nature,
scope and effect of the act to say that the fees
therein are not fixed on u basis of population
and duties to be performed. The act expressly
provides the amount OF fees to be charged in
| each case, and they are earned according to
the amount of duty performed. In other words
in populous township more fees will be earned
by reason of more arrests than in O sparsely
settled community, but the charge for each
individual service is precisely the same. Such
an objection would apply equally as well to
the pre- existing law as to the present.
Nor does the act decrease the compensation,
SO that the people are left in many districts
without peace officers. If any have resigned
by reason of the act, the people have got to
hear of it, and if they have there will unques-
places Instead as Of the act Being premium on
neglect of official duty. it may with absolute
truth be said that the pre-existing law was a
premium on robbery OF taxpayers and county
The present act is an inhibition on such
outrages as the wholesale arrest of inno-
cent men looking for work and was passed in
response to the spontaneous demand OF tax
payers in every county in the State.
But the most remarkable contention against
the constitutionality of the act is that it de-
creases the compensation of peace officers so
that they are legislated out of office and in the
next breath that the act increases their COM
pensation during their term OF office. The
sight of public officer in this State endeavor-
ing to have an act declared unconstitutional
because it increases his compensation is q
spectacle for the godm
This act, however, nowhere increases the
compensation of any public officer. Wherever
it has made change from the pre-existing act
the fees have been decreased. 1 do not know
on what ground Judge Bucker of Solano County
decided the law not applicable to that county,
but have no doubt 1t was because the county
government act provides a salary for the JUS
tees and constables for that county in lieu of
fees, and that the act was not intended TO In.
terfere with any provision of the county gov
eminent act where it provided a salary in lieu
of fees. In Santa Clara County, where the OFF,
GERS receive fees as compensation, and every
question of the alleged unconstitutionality of
the act could be raised, Judge Reynolds de-
clared the bill constitutional.