The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-11-28

Adstn, Texas, November 27--In his an.
pual report the comptroller has the follow
ing to say anent fees OF sherlfis, clerks aud
attorneys In felony casos:
Under a provision Of the fee bill passed
by the last legislature. sherlffs OF ffty-slx
counties in the State are required to accom-
pany their accounts to this office, with GER
ttned copies under the hand and soal Of the
district clerk Of an their returns on criml-
nal process for which they are claiming fees
against the state. These copies show only
two things which the account of the sheriff
fails TO show, to-wlt a. The date the
process came to hand; t2j the name OF the
deputy serving the same. 1t is not believed
that the requirement of these copies affords
additional safeguards to the State aud
there is no good reason for the dscrimmH-
ton against the shcrfs Of what are known
as over counties, that is counties voting
5000 or more at the last presidential cleo
lion. Tie prepare the copies requires Il great
deal Of labor and considerable expense.
which must be borne by the officers inter,
cstcd, besides cncumbcrinc the files Of this
oAice with bulk OF apparently useless
matter. rho account itself must show the
name Of each defendant the number aud
nature OF the ease, the disposition Of the
same, the place Of arrest and the number OF
miles Travelled going To place Of arrest and
returning with prisoner, the name of each
witness subnOCnaed or attached with the
distance and courses from the county seat
Travelled in executing said process, The cor.
rectncss of the account Is sworn 10 by the
officer and approved by the district Judge,
whose duty Is 20 Inquire into the correct
ness thereof. This seems 10 be as much
MS can de done towards securing a correct
account.
The attorney general holds that a sheriff
can not be paid his fees for attaching and
taking the bond Of or conveying a witness
III a felony case, unless the witness has
previously disobeycd subpoena issued In
accordance with the provisions OF the act
approved July 3, 1897. In a great many iu-
stances the officer has no means of know
ing whether the witness has disobeyed n
subpoena and frequently the district Judge
wires him 20 bring n witness lnstauter and
he must serve the process or run the risk
Of being held In contempt of court ii Up.
pears that the department has uniformly
refused payment In cases where the nc
court fails o. show disahcdience OF the sub
noena. acting I'm accordance with attorney
generals opinion but, ! believe, In every
such cnsc presented 90 the legislature spe.
cial provision for payment has been made.
While In the end, the officer may obtain
what Is In equity due him, be Is obliged "a
wait a long umr 10 say nothing OF the
doubt and uncertainty which he must I'M
dcrEO ms we'll as the difficulties In getting
his account before the Legislature Restrc
lions should be placed on the order Of issu
ance of the process or that In the provisions
for payment should he removed.
Sherifs and constables receive no fees foI
subpoenaing or attaching witnesses IN ha
beas corpus cases. The appropriation bill
provides for the payment OF fees to these
ofllcCrs IN felony cases only; and. habeas
corpus cases not being felony cases, no pro
r-tgi ~ for 10 Cbriafsn1 Gqrks
ices In such cases. Special provisions arc
made for the payment OF the fees Of the
district or county attorney and tbe distriG
clerk and ! see no good reason why the
sheriff should mt be paid for his services
also.
Sheriffs and constabeS, IN counties cast
ing less than 5000 votes 10 the last pres
dental election. receive 81 per day for con
viewing an attached witness. while such OF
hccrs In counties casting 1900 or more votes
In such election receive Sl.50 per day FOL
this service This gives the officers In The
counties With the lcnst business the smaller
Tor