The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1900-11-20
THE FEE SYSTEM
Register Clarke Thinks Bet
ter Work Is Done
on Salaries.
LILLIS and STACK AGREE
The New Law Will Have to
Be Amended So as to Be
Plain, They Contend.

Yesterdays decision of the Court of
Errors and Appeals sustaining the act of
1898, abolishing the fee system in the
I'Surrogate's Registers and County Clerks
offices and placing those officials under a
yearly salary of $500 each. was the one
topic of discussion about the Court House
today.
The suit was brought by Register James
/ C. Clarke in order to test the constitu-
tionality of the act A prior suit had been
instituted by Surrogate Ellor of Essex
county, but was abandoned because it was
thought inadvisable to have Republican
official attack the legislation of his own
party.
When asked his opinion of the decision
by a News reporter this morning,
Register Clarke said:-
81 am entirely satisfied. 1t will now give
US an opportunity to have certain gaps in
the law filed so that we can work on an
unquestionable basis. 1t would scarcely
have made a dollar difference to me per-
sonaly if Judge Fort had decided the
other way as the present rate of pay
would have been continued as well as the
present perfection of service. Under the
old system the recordin clerks were
obliged to write against time, and in con-
sequence the records were not as legible
as they should be. At present the clerks
take, being paid salary, and the records
are clear, plain and legible. Manager
Charles Austin allots to each man his
days work. His years of experience quail
ify him to judge what days work should
be. For this reason the salary system
has its advantage over the fee system
my object in contesting the law was
merely for the purpose of starting right.
Now that the point is satisfactorily settled
we must have some legislation to wipe
out the antiquities of the law as it now
stands.
1.-THE law says that the fees shall be
paid to the County Collector. but does
not state how. There is no provision
made for the salaries of my staff of en-
ployes. The law does not state whether
or not the Board of Freeholders should
make appropriation and no appropriation
has been made. My employees used to re-
-eeive their pay every week. Under the
law now they have been obliged to wait
six weeks, although this defect I have
remedied.
1.-The law says that the clerks must be
paid by warrant. To do that there must
be an appropriation. The law fails to
state what disposition should be made of
any surplus contend that any surplus
should be used for the betterment of our
system of recording. At present the law
makes no provision for the disposition of
the surplus 1t simply provides for the
salary of the Register.
I'VE had a surplus of $1,000 between
April and October 10, but our work was
behind six weeks and as the lawyers were
complaining we were obliged to put on six
extra men. We will probably catch up
with the work by January l.
.sWhile personally 1 am satisfied with
the decision L believe the law should be
amended so as to be at least comprehensi-
ble.''
Surrogate Lillis said:-
1.-THE law of 1898 does not as yet affect
the office of Surrogate in this county, nor
will it during my present term OF office
| Should be elected for another term my
| office will start in under the salary sys-
TEN. 1 agree with Register Clarke re-
| garding the vagaries of the law and be-
| Iieye that amendments should be enacted
| so that there can be no doubt as to its
purport.'
County Clerk Maurice Stack said that
he never believed the act of 1898 would be
| declared unconstitutional.
'I believe we can give the public better
service under the salary system" he de-
clared. THE records are kept better than
| they woul be under the fee system The
head of the office as well as the clerks
| have an assured salary and the operation
of the act has thus far beGn most satis-
| factory to lawyers and others having
| dealings with my Office