The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1898-11-04
NO FEES IN FUTURE.
County Court Committeeman Must Be
Content with Their Salaries.

County Court Committeeman Must Be
Content With Their Salaries.
Nashville American, Nov.2
In recent decision of the Su-
preme Court of Tennessee it was
held that members of the County
Court serving on committees whose
duty it was to supervise or direct
improvements being made In the
county, were not under the law enti-
tied to extra pay or remuneration.
This decision has caused good
deal OF comment among the men,
bers of the various County Courts of
the State.
Judge John Q. Ferrriss, of the
Davidson County Court, made some
interesting comments yesterday af-
ternOon on the workings of the court
in this county, and of the advan-
tages and savings TO be derived from
this decision Of the Supreme Court.
Juoge Ferriss said this case, In
which final appeal had been made
to the Supreme Court, was that of
Hope vs.. Hamilton County; that
Hope, as a member of the County
Court of Hamilton County, had
been appointed on the C 'mmittee to
supervise the Improvements that
were to he made on the court house
and the Jail at Chattanooga; that as
Chairman of that committee he had
devoted much of his time to the
work being done, and that in addi-
ton, as the architect had been lax
in the performance of his duties,
Hope had assumed the respousi-
bility of seeing that the work was
done in accordance with the specifi-
cations. The County Court, under
Its construction Of the law, had re-
fused to allow Hope remuneration
for his services. The case was
thrown into court and verdict was
given the petitioner; this verdict
was reversed by the Court of APP
peals, and the Supreme Court sus-
tanned the latter court in its decis-
ion. The Supreme Court held that
members of the County Courts had
no more right to- claim additional
pay for serving on committees in
the performance of their duties than
members of the General Assembly
had the right to claim pay for serv-
ing on committees in the perform
ance of the duties assigned to them.
The Present Custom.
1t was now the custom, Judge
Ferriss said, to pay Magistrates,
when they served on committees
that had work ahead and required
time and labor, the sum of SO a day.
This precedent, he said, had been a
source of great expense to the coun-
ty, and every member of the court
knew that these duties would de-
VolVe upon them when hey ac-
cepted the office.
1t has been the custom for Magis-
trates all over the State to consider
the work eX-Offlcio duty when they
are appointed on committee, and
that they are entitled to pay. MANY
OF them drew their pay when they
were really not entitled to it, for the
Chairman of the committee did the
WORK, and in the majority of in
stances the others did not even 90
near where the improvements were
being made. but they drew their SO
a day just the same.
Another point brought out by
OouIiuueu Judge
which the judges of the various
county Courts must adhere to the
law enacted by the Legislature. A
County Court is different from a
City Council. The Council NAV en-
act it's own laws for government, but
the County Courts must follow the
duties prescribed for them. Their
construction Of the law has been
very liberal. For instance, in the
great majority Of the counties of the
state, the courts have been furnish
Tug the Illustrates with copies of
the Code of Tennessee, when the
acts say that the Magistrates shall
be furnished with copies of the code
by the Legislature. The County
Courts had no more right to furnish
these books to the Magistrates than
they had to furnish each one of them