The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1900-11-30
KELSEY'S FEES.
States Suit Against Her
Former Secretary Ar
gued Again.
QUESTION OF HIS RIGHTS
Case Hangs on the Construc-
ton OF the Salary
Act.
Special to "The Jersey city News.")

Especial to 1.-THE Jersey City News.")
TRENTON, Nov. 80. 19O0-The Court OF
Errors and Appeals heard argument We'd
nesday in the suit instituted by the At
torney General against former Secretary
of State Henry c. Kelsey, to recover fees
amounting to some $500 alleged to have
been illegally retained by Mr.. Kelsey
while he was in office. The Supreme Court
decided against Mr.. Kelsey, and from this
decision an appeal was taken.
The question involved is purely a
legal one. Mr.. Kelsey, acting under the
advice of counsel. retained the fees col
lected by him as Register of the Pre-
rogative Court. The determination of
the case virtually hinges upon whether
the law abolishing the fee system and
placing the Secretary of State on q
salary applies to that officer also in his
capacity as Register of the prerogative
Court.
Attorney General Grey, on behalf of
the State, contended that after the salary
of the Secretary of State had been fixed
he was entitled to receive no other emo
luments whatever from his office.
r. " Lindabury and ex-Judge Lanning,
on behalf of Mr.. Kelsey, maintained that.
despite the fact that the Secretary of
State had been placed on salary, under
an act of 1891 he was entitled to extra
compensation for his services as Register
of the Prerogative Court. The contention
of the lawyers was that the fees in ques-
tion should go to Mr.. Kelsey, because the
act provided that the Register shall be
entitled to charge and receive the fees.
ho 10 her L.
Lindabury, 'is not appropriate to create
a duty but only to confer a privilege.
The words are permissive, not rnanda-
tory. How can it be supposed that, by
the employment of this language, the
Legislature intended to require the Reg
lister to collect the fees in question, as 1t
must have done if they were to be coll
lected, for the use of the State, rather
than to permit him or give him title to-
collect them, which is what it naturally
would have done if they were for his
own use.
I'VE submit that it would have been
impossible for the Legislature to have
expressed an intention to give the Reg
lister title to these fees with any more
clearness than it has done, except by
adding that he should receive or retain
them for his own use, and this we find
it has never done in a single act creating
fees for the benefit of public officials.
1.-THE act imposed new and additional
duties upon the Register and it is only
fair to assume that the Legislature In
tended to give him additional compen-
sation. Now, we submit, can 1t be suc-
cessfully claimed that the Legislature re-
tanned on account of the constitutional
provision prohibiting any increase In
the compensation of a public officer dur
ing his term of office? The increase
prohibited in the Constitution is for
doing the same duty that is imposed
when the office is accepted at a stated
salary or compensation, and does not
restrain the Legislature from providing
new compensation for new duties inn
posed.
The court reserved decision.