The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-04-30

q bill on this subject. but the house has
not shown any alacr'iy to follow TINS wof-
thy example. Allowing that all dom0-
cratic members Of the house are Ia favor o.!
what Is commonly called q Zee bii W.
which for good reasons is believed 20 be a
''voien, presumption. there is or has been
wide ana seemingly mpas.lhle fui ne
tween the majority and minority on the
question Of hll limiting tho tees OF
county officials to a certain amount and
the excess to be turned into the state
treasury or tho state and county treasures
and a bin scaling the fees u Office IL
gems that however loosely Platform
pledges may be regarded that Il the plat
form demand is plain thai democrats
would have no trouble In getting on 1T.
There has been the bone OF contention. tho
majority claiming that any sort Of con-
structon, either strict or loose ot this
plank demands law placing a limi' on
the amount Of fees 10 he retained BY coun-
ty officials. Now let US examine this
lows,
u. We indorse the reforms In our fec
system recommended BY Governor Cniber-
son, and demand that the lees OF count.
and district Officers be regulated by the
enactment Of law similar 10 that which
now regulates the compensation ot county
tfeasurers. with such notifications ~ wln
'-NH'N 'ta''A'l@- FAptA~ lfINiiH anu iAl JAhA
alike TO officer itlEaut and tGNp-> -"
This is the seventh plank In the demo-
cratic platform adopted AZ Fort Worth Au-
gust IS, 1885. Now It is evident that this
plank is based solely on the "rcoonnenda-
tlon OF Governor CulbeTson." II Governor
Cuiherson's recommendation be understood
1t Will be easy to solve the meaning Of Ibis
plank In the democratic platform
II plainly ssys I'VE indorse tho retorma
In our lee system recommended by Cover
nor Culberson When the Twenty fourth
legislature assembled IN january. 1896
Governor culherson n hts message 10 that
body on that subject spoke ns follows.
Ihe highest salary paid any state Of
ficer Is $4,000 and the average ls $1,000
Many district and county officers some of
whose fees affect the state treasury ana
others do not receive greater compensa.
lion than the highest paid By the stare
ana In Instances Will reach aud may tx.
coed $4,000 per annum, Thia is unjust
to the people, is a fruitful source OF politl-
cal corruption and should be- promptly
corrected. The fees OF district attoruays
should DO limited to $2b0O per annun ana
those of all county and precinct officers
should not exceed 5000 NET. the excess IA
De paid into the State TREASURY 10 account
OF general revenue In proper caaes as
sistants or deputies should he allowed. hui
the number ana compensation. to be reg,i-
.'Nee w iVphsliloll, snOnll be prescribed
by law. IL is believed law framed ON
these lines viii greatly limit tho drain ON
the treasury and add 900 or sl00 900 an.
hnaiIy 10 the revenue. Whatever the state
may fail 10 receive In foes by derellctiou
OF duty will be saved to the people by ro-
moving the prevailing incentive after the
limit Ia reached"
This is the recommendation which tho
democratic platform indorsos. II ia too
plain 20 be miscopstrued. and it L. CAPABLE
OF only one construction IT SAYS. "'rhe
ices OF district attorneys should be limited
TO $1,000 per annum aud that Of all county
and precinct officers 10 $4,000 net and tho
txeess 10 be paid into the State Treasury.
IL Is believed a law framed on these llnfs
VIII greatly limit the drain on the treas,
ury and add $4,000 or siOo. 900 annually
10 the revenue
Now this seems plain enough II law
was enacted scaling the fees II would
clearly be foreign to tho platform demand
az under such law no limit ON tbe
amount To DO retained by officials: ana
again, under such law there could h.
no amount to be turned into the TREASURY
Again. this platform demand declares m,
saIarles Of county officials shall be fixed