The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-11-28
Case Of Clerk vs., Finley, Comptroller, Sub.
mltted TO the Supreme Court.
AZ a Decision for the PiaiauR Would
Compel the Payment OF a Large
Amount to County ofnciais.

4
petition, but contending that said facts
give no cause for relief, the issue present.
ed being that OF the constitutionality OF
the act complained OF. Finley was repre-
scented BY Attorney General Smith and
Office Assistant Attorney General Ward.
Clark was represented by A. I. Watts and
u. g. senter of Dallas and ID. B. Tarletor
Of Fort Worth.
Clark VS.. Finley is un original proceed
Ing Instituted in the supreme court by tho
sheriff OF Tarrant county against the comp
troller Of state for the purpose OF obtain
lug mandamus against him to compel
/ him 10 issue a warrant on the State treas .
4 urer IN favor OF Clark as sheriff, FOR the
sum OF S4S,SO for official services per-
/ FORMED by said Clark in a felony case,
TIE account Tor the sum In question having
peen made out in accordance with articles
1859 and 1857 OF the Code OF Criminal Pro-
cedlre, said articles being the law In force
prior 10 the passage of the fee act OF 1SaI.
The judge OF the district court OF Tarrant
county. Notwithstanding the act OF 1887,
which repealed articles 1888 and 1857. APP
proved and allowed Clarks account and
Clark presented 1t 10 Finley, who refused
10 draw his warrant for same because
not made Out in accordance with the pro-
visions of the act OF 1877, and thereupon
petition for mandamus was filed IN the
supreme court. said petition alleges that
the fee law of 1897 violates the following
provisions OF the constitution: Sections II
and 10, article /; sections 80, IS, 40, IS.
81, 56 and 81, article 3, and sections 10, 81
and %. article s.
The main attack upon the act OF 1897
was made by plaintiff because 1t attempts
TO withhold from certain county judges,
county and district attorneys and sheriffs
of the State, to-wit, those who hold offices
in counties with voting population of 30OU
aud over, q part of the fees. perquis!tes
and commissions prescribed by law AZ
compensation for their official services and
to appropriate such part so taken of the
fees, perquisites and commissions belong
ing to said county judges and county and
district attorneys to the use and benefit
of the counties in which they serve as
officers.
Because said act provides for the APP
preparation OF moneys from the general
revenue fund of the State, collected by
taxes levied upon the people of the whole
State to the use and benefit of certain
municipal corporations, to-wit, of counties
having voting population of 5000 or over
and for purpose other than the economical
administration of the State government.
ing OF moneys from the general revenue
fund of the State for purposes not provided
for in specific appropriations made by law
and that such unlawful appropriation OF
State funds shall continue for a longer
term than two years.
Because said act is in part measure
for raising revenue and did not originate
in the house OF representatives.. hut did
originate in the senate OF the called SEES
sion Of the Twenty-fifth legislature.
Because IL the law has an OBJECT within
the purview of the constitutional rule
fsection 80, article 81 It is to regulate
and limit the maximum compensation To
be paid the officers named in it. its object
with reference to the sheriff is wholly diff
ferent, being measure to fix certain
civil fees and TO fix fees in felony cases to
be paid sheriffs in certain counties. II
follows under said rule that even IL the
law be sustained so much Of 1t as refers
to the sheriff is imperative and void.
Because the State can not arbitrarily
discriminate between its citizens, its couiis
ties or its officers, and is without power &c
vary its penalties for crime IN particular
counties, both OF which said law seeks TO
do.
Because said law fixes a maximum COM
pensation for all county officers except
the sheriff in every county in the state,
but provides for the enforcement of this
limitation IN only about one-fourth OF the
counties, and is hence unreasonable, arr
bitrary and inconsistent in Its general
method OF classification.
Because said law invests the county
Judge with powers that are not judicial
in their nature and that are expressly
reserved to the commissioners courts by
the constitution in that 1t lodges In SAID
county Judge the power to authorize the
appointment of the deputies and assist
ants of other county officers and TO NIX
their salaries.
Because the title OF said act is defective
In reply to plaintiffs petition Attorney
General Smith in his brief contented him.
self with mainly presenting the syllabi OF
the various cases clearly In point and APP
preciable to the constitutional objections
raised by petitioner decided by the nlgn-
est courts of other States, construing req
laws similar TO the one attacked. From
these decisions 1t will appear" Mr.. Smith
maintains. that the courts, with remark-
ahIa ,,nanimity, have decided all the con-
stitutional questions raised by petitioner
sdversely TO him" In support OF THIS as
sertion the case Of Harwood VS.. Went
worth. 1862 U. S.. 1928, is cited; also
number OF Ohio. Indiana, Nepraska, nen-
tnclv Nevada and Minnesota cases. Fur
.ssn han this the attorney general III
s,,s hr,ef declared that the Texas fee law u
n ~, a revenue measure or tax upon iiti-
hoa ~ litigation and that II 1t was
!, snnr .o,ld mi violate the constitution az
y r MT 10 Tennessee, Nebraska. Iowa,
Phode island, Arkansas ana Nortn Saro-
lima decisions. cara,.I
,,sard Senied that the title OF the existing
go law is detective and that the act ITSELF
~. : snecial legislation, relying upon nu-
. Sp aecisions of the Texas and otner
NV, hsariug upon these points for sup
GOV, He also asserted that in State after
pp.t. q has been held that the population
~ so,,nties is a proper basis for liking the
.. ,,ansation OF public officers, and that
M overwhelming weight OF authorities
3, ~ IN support OF the constitutionaiity OF
y, ~ a,tanked act. He cited court decisions
s,G horatelv discussing the proposition that
,au regulating the compensation OF or
q ir a. In no sense a law designed to
n sie. General revenue or an exercise OF the
1870 newer OF the State, and holding
.a.A various constitutional Limitations
.na. M taxiag power have no application
as " 80 regulating the compensation of
n,,r,ic officials. There is nothing arbitra.
p -. ~ argued, in the classification adopted
90 rexas law. and II Is not special leg
~ w as Il applies 10 all under like con
n,s,ans AZ TO the excess OF fees that may
ai.ious .hcvs the limit OF compensation
accius he fee law for county officials,
nAsp ~ a asserted that there 10 nothing
=. ~ Constitution TO estop the legislafure
~ lus -nviding that It shall be converted
lI0kA RtS'f~,-.--. rla ~