The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-08-02

Ahsn Ices COlltCIcu.s ss.'NlOsOoo ~
Fees not collected. 80. =. 10,451 20
Cash fees collected in city tax
suits. :. :. ........ $3.50 Az
Fees in city tax suits not col
lected.. :. :. =. :. -. ...S 4,551 20
Total -. -. 80. .s32,5ie OF
Less salaries for two years, :. 5000 90
s27,51e OF
Less fourth of the excess. 6.S2s %
$40. eS7 O5
Less amounts paid deputies. :. 1877 Al
Excess due county OF Harris. -. s1O,o49 "a
Mr.. Williams Is entitled also to 10 per
cent for the collection OF fees not col
lected The item does not figure in our
statement
MIR. WILLIAMS ANSWER.
Messrs. Bolmes. Cotter and Sternenberg
| Commissioners.
Houston, Texas. February %. 1900
Sirs: l have the honor to reply to your
| injuries made of me as follows:
! /. AS to why / claim the salary az
1 district clerk of the Fiftyhfth judicial
| district. as well as the salary as dis
| trict clerk for the Eleventh judicial dis
trict; The fees provided by law article
2I95c) provides that the clerk OF the dis
| trict court shall receive not exceeding
$500 per annum. 1t does not say that
/ the district clerk of county shall receive
that amount but the clerk of the district
court; the salary is to compensate the
! clerk for the duties supervision and re-
sponsibiIities imposed on him as the
! clerk of the court. There IS as much
/ responsibility and duty imposed on me
as clerk of the Fitty-fifth judicial dis
trict rs there is as clerk of the Eleventh.
/ my bond covers all of my official acts
as clerk of the Fifty-tfth district. and
and NV bondsmen would be held liable
| for any failure TO perform it's duties,
through myself or my deputies, as it
would for like acts in the Eleventh; and
the only reasonable construction | can
put upon the law is that ! am entitled
to the same compensation as clerk oil
the l7fty-ffth that | would be if wa.
not clerk OF the Eleventh.
/ had to employ deputies to attend said
court and 10 perform its duties; and to be
responsible for their acts. and to pay then
their salaries as they accrued monthly
During he first year of its existence
there were not enough fees collected ou
OF said court to pay the salaries Of my
deputies, and | had to pay them out o
my private funds | submitted the ques
ton to several able lawyers in the city
OF Houston at the time the Fifty-fttl
out q dissenting voice they each gave m'
their well considered opinions Jhat | wa
entitled to the salary and emolument
as clerk Of the Fifty-ffth Judicial dis
trict that ! would be If not clerk OF tn
Eleventh and that the intention OF tb
legislature was that the clerk of eacl
district court should receive the s1lare
provided for without reference TO tn
fact hat he same person might be cler
n M nj h
not so intended, the legislature woul
have restricted their language and mad
Ii read that The district clerk in oac
county should receive not exceeding
$500 etc This is more apparent frot
the hact that at the time this law wa
passed several counties in the State he
2 two district courts-I)allas, BeNar an
Tarrant--in which the same person wa
2 clerk OF the several courts
After having, as heretofore stated, OF
tanned the opinion of several eminent at
torueys Of the Houston bar, all Of whic
were BILE to my contention, | sui
mitted the matter to the attorney Eener;
Of the state for his opinion. hut he dc
q clined to advise me in the matter.
2. As to your second question, a.
~ why do not include in my accounts IN
rosts collected in suits brought by n
n state. county md city for taxes. I beg
II refer 10 Article 2495h. which especial
Vt provides that the fees allowed by Ia
l. 20 district and county clerks. count
attorneys and tax collectors in suits
r collect taxes shall be in addition to N
C. maximum salaries fixed by this chapter
As the fees so collected in tax suits 1
r. this provision are to be in addition
e the maximum fees allowed mo by Law
n and are not TO be accounted for. and
is the State and county have no interest
d them / was advised that Il was not nee
e essary to report the same. and as
a would require considerable labor an
y time TO keen an eccount Of the costs co
10 lccted IN said suits some OF which 40
l. crued years previous. under advice | dI
1t not so arrange and keep them,
b l have the honor 10 be. very respectful
s. w. John n. Williams.
J. f. F, DUPRFE, COUNTY CLERK.
" We have carefully checked up the bus
ness Of this office for the two years enc
a. ing November 30. 1899 and find that h
Is two annual reports agree with the civ
and probate doekets.
81 > An examination OF the recording d.
partment OF this office is not SO satisfa,
50 tory, dnd tor the purpose OF eXplauatit
here quote the law as we understand
% to-wit: Section IL OF the Zee bill law
49, approved June 10. 1897;
% 1t shall be che duty of those ofticia
So named in section 10 of this act, and all
80 the sheriff, TO keep correct statomaI
20 Of the sums coming into their hands
30 fees and commissions, in book 10
- provided by them for that purpose.
"a which the officer, at the time when al
sr fees or moneys shall come into his hand
shall enter the same; and IL shall be Il
u duty of the grand jury tand the distri
Judge shall so charge the grand jury
examine these accounts at the session
% the district court next succeeding Il
w first dag OF December OF each year. al
80 make report on same 70 the distrl
% court at the conclusion OF the session
10 the gnnd jury"
40 We take It that It is the plain intenti
~ OF the law that each fee. at the time
w receipt. shall be entered in the cash boz
>, Mr. Dupree evidently differs from o
~ construction OF the law, and instead
itemizing. he bulks an entire days 7
ceipts, destroying the evidence on whi
they are based. The result Is that the r
40 ceipts from the recording departing
l6 can not be checked; they can not be ev
approximated. because many receipts a
oS not matters OF record.
Ga We regret that we can not give Mr.. y
- pree a clearance. because in other
20 spects we consider him very efficle
officer.