The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-12-15
In Is CONSTITUTIONAL.
The Supreme Court Has So Passed on the
Fee Law.
THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS WAS REFUSED
The Petition Was mt the Instance OF
Sterling II. Clark. SheriH, ana
Against ComptrOlIer Finley.

preme court today fetuseu 10 grant VIII
OF mandamus in Sterling P. Clark VS.. r
w. Finley. comptroller. This is the cas-
in which the constitutionality Of the &C
of the Twenty fifth legislature regulating
the fees and limiting the compensation Of
precinct. county and district officers was
attacked, Clark, sheriff of Tarrant county
having sought to compel the comptrolle
TO pay him an account for official ser
vices drawn under the law in effect prio
to 1897.
Relator contended that the act In ques
ton Is in conflict with section So of ar
ticle 3 of the constitution, which provide!
that no bill except general appropr!a-
ton bill shall contain more than one
subject which shall be expressed In its
title. The court finds that all the mat
tiers contained in the act have one general
object and relate to the one subject oil
the compensation of the States officers
except, possibly when the attempt to rcgu-
late the appointment OF deputies is made.
The provision in regard to deputies
vas intended to limit their number and
| Tx their compensate II, bit whether II Is
sermane to the subject OF the act and
| suluClcntly WlIHlu tne purNieW OIL tLS tllie
as TO bring II within the rule of the con-
sttution under consideration we need not
pause to inquire. No question in regard
to that provision is directly involved In
this proceeding. IL the matter of the
appointment OF deputies does not come
within the compass OF the title it goes for
naught, but the vice does not otherwise
acct the law. The act stands as II the
obnoxious provision had never been in
serted
Relator insisted that the act in question
Is an amendment TO various provisions of
The Revised Statutes and therefore prohib-
tied by section So. article of the consti-
tuition, which reads that no law shall be
revised or amended by reference to its
title, but in such case the act revised or
the section or sections amended shall be
re-enacted and published at length. The
court finds that there is no attempt in
the act to amend any law "by reference
to its title" and that section Sc has no
application whatever.
Relator urged that the act in question
is repugnant to that section of the con-
stitution which prohibits the passage of
special or local laws In certain specified
cases and in every case where a general
law may be made applicable. The grousd
of tine contention Is that most of the vital
provisions of the act are by its terms
made applicable to minority only of thu
counties in the State. Its most important
provisions do not apply to counties in
which the vote at the last election for
president was less than 5000 The court
hnds that 1t can not be that the statute
under consideration is special merely be-
cause it is made to operate IN some coun-
ties of the State and not in others After
quoting the supreme court of Pennsylvania
IN wheeler vs. Philadelphia. where it says,
1t is sufficient to say that statute
which relates to persons or things as a
class is general law. while a statute
which relates to particular persons or
things of class is special ana comes
within the constitutional prohibition, the
court proceeds as follows: the law in
question is applicable to every county of
the designated class. Now we do not
propose TO he led off into any extended
discussion as 20 what is proper class for
the application of a general law The
tendency OF the recent decisions upon
the subject, as il seems TO us. is to drift
into retinements that are rather more spe-
cious than profitable. II is said in some
OF the cases that the classification must
be reasonable; in others that II must not
be unreasonable, or arbitrary, etc If 1t
IS meant by this that the Legislature evade
he prohibition of the constitution as to
special laws by making a law applicable
~ P'etehueu cihss. Wnhcn Is, In facl, no
class, we concur in the proposition In
'ofar as the courts, which undertake To de-
Inc the basis upon which the classification
must rest hold that the leglslau IRE can no.
~ pretended classification eyade con-
stitntional restriction, we fully concur
With them. But If they hold that classi-
lcauon which does not manifest purnose
% eVade the constitution Is not sufficient
support statute as a general law. :
merely because In the courts opinion the ,
lassiiication Is unreasonable We are not +
prepared to concur. Legislature may g
each the conclusion that the compensation
u certain officers in certain counties of
ne state Is excessive, while in others II
not more than enough BY the reduc- ,
ion Of the fees OF Office throughout the
'tate they may correct the evil In those In :.
vnich the compensation Is too great hut u
hey would probably infict greater evil
y, making the compensation too small in I
II me others. In such a case 1t becomes
ecessary 10 make the law applicable TO e
ONE ana not TO all. There must be a d
lassincation That classification may be n
liner by population or by taxable Values"
On This same subject the court further "
iys' Nor do we think the act In dues IL
ON can bs considered local law within r,
le meaning of the term as used In tho
VISION OF the constitution under consid-
u"'r ipuuu no very SallSfac-
Try definition OF local law. But II g
ems to us that 1t is one, the operatiou
which Is confined to fixed part OF ths
rritory OF the State Il Is plain from
e reading OF the statute in question that
was not contemplated that 1t should fc
ave eHect In every county OF the State. hi
ME by the determination OF an extrinsic in
ct. It's operation In the main may be- ca
strlcted to minority of the counties CO
the State, still 1t applies generally TO co
9 whole State. Besides the territory ia ed
u hxed, but is subject to ehange ac-
rang TO the increase or decrease Of pr
e population of the respective counties Nj
may appear by the vote And again. In
- neid that statute, although Its en- sc
rcement be restricted to a fixed locality. tn
not local In its character, II persons or IA
'lss throughout the State be affected
u hs
But holding as we do that as 10 the M,
estion before us. there is no material tiy
,erehee whether the classification be by cel
puiaton or by the taxable values Of
, t., we have high authority that .
sa.s OF the character Of that under con-,
eratlon is neither special nor a local in
" here the court quotes from Har-
&c 90 vs. wentworth tls2 u. g.. 5l7.) ]
ne taet that the statute prescrlbes that IN,
county judge shall designate the num- we
deputies TO which certain officers mo
y Te entitled is also urged as ground mo