Arizona republican., 1905-02-17

test of strength for it being represent ed by Mr Anderson that it was the practice of the house to commit
 bills in deference to the wishes of the members introducing them, the bills were allowed to go to the corporations committee
 The superior court bill underwent additional mutilation yesterday after noon in the whole committee and when the committee rose late in the day it was impossible to say how nearly it had completed consideration of the measure There are thirty-twO sec tions of the bill By the middle of the afternoon the committee has reached the twenty-ninth and had stricken it out That made it necessary to re- turn to several of the preceding sec tions and make corresponding amend ments in them. Then in several other sections which had been passed over amendments were made, not suggest ed at all by the striking out of twen- ty-nine.
 Section 29 provides that in the ab- sence of a judge of the superior court his clerk may transact all probate business out that an appeal may be taken from any of his orders to the judge of the court. The first note of opposition to this section was sounded in a letter which Speaker Webb had received from an attorney who de- scribed the section as vicious and dan gerous, calculated to be in the inter est of a lazy judge. The appeal would be expensive to those dissatisfied with the decisions of the clerk who in most cases would naturally be incompetent to pass upon the matters brought be- fn hi oh fnT1l it was pointed out that under the pres ent system the judges of probate courts were generally lawyers and beside it was contemplated for the first twol years at least, the clerks should be the men who last fall had been elected pro- bate judges. They could certainly dol no worse in the capacity of clerk than in that of probate judge. It was also discovered that the appeals provided for could not be taken inasmuch as the decrees would be interlocutory and therefore not appealable. The result of a long discussion of the subject re- suited in the striking out of the sec tion entirely. That was one result. The debate had called attention to al fact passed over that the bill provid ed for the absence of the judge from the county for sixty days in the year. I lcit do DCllGN GU tO DC AOO lOii5 anu the committee went back to an early section and amended it by changing the time to thirty days.
 Then the general subject of the com pensation of the clerk was raised. The bill as presented to the committee pro- vided that he should receive the fees l of the probate business and also fees for his services as clerk of the supe rior court, similar to those received byI clerks of district courts. This arrange 1 ment was to be in force until Jan. 1, | 1907. when the clerks should receive a flat salary of $2,00O a year. That section was amended yesterday by giv ing the clerk all the fees of the pro | bate business. The other court fees | are to be turned into the treasury. On | Jan. 1, 1907, the straight salary of S2, ,OO0 is to begin. Other items of the | compensation of clerks were under consideration when the committee rose.
 Several new bills were introduced in | the morning session of the house. One | of them by MT Cobb presented the | old familiar features of the bill fix | ing coppepsation- of county recorders It provides that in counties of the first | class the salary of the recorder shall be S2,OOO a year; in counties of the | second class, S1,S0O; in counties of the third class, $500; in counties of all | other classes, S1,250. Another prOvi- | sion is one which has generally been regarded as objectionable and has been 1 turned down. It provides that for the issuing of certificates the recorder | shall have half the fee; also that he shall be allowed to make abstracts and retain half the fee. That is where the | objection has always been raised. It is charged that the provision is not in the interest of the county but in that of the recorder and some abstract firm. It is pointed that the recorder, though | he is in possession of all the records, is not able to collect the information from them necessary to the making Of an abstract. His records are not kept for that purpose while those of ab- stract companies are. It is therefore contended that if this provision should become a law every county recorder would become a silent partner in some private abstract company.
 Other bills were as follows: