The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1909-06-02


was passed known as the in and out
ed out at the time that it made no
change in the existing laws on the sub
ject of fees except that it allowed the
sheriff twenty-five cents for locking a
prisoner in Jail and twenty-five cents
for releasing him from Jail at the expi-
ration Of his sentence. But when
Governor Hanly looked at the bill he
declared his belief that it was uncon-
stitutional, and for that reason he We
toed it. But the bill was passed so
late in the session that Governor Han
ly could not act upon it, before the
close of the session. The bill laid over
and was on the governors desk for his
consideration at the close. And it
was after that the bill was vetoed.
Passed Over Veto.
The constitution says that bill We
toed by the governor after the close OF
a session of the legislature must be re-
ported back with the veto to the next
session of the legislature. In this in
stance, the in and out fee bill was re-
ported back with the veto at the 1909
session. and that body passed the bill
over the governors veto.
The same was true of the clerks fee
bill. 1t was passed in 1907, also and
it is since been discovered that the bill
was not what it was said to be at the
time. When the. county clerks were
lobbying for the passage of the bill,
they and their lobbyists declared that
the new bill merely gave the county
clerks the fees that are paid in for
transcripts which they might make.
These fees were to be retained by the
clerks under the new law, they said,
and that was the only change made in
the existing law.
But Governor Hanly vetoed it also,
and the vetoed bill was reported back
to the legislature at the 1909 session,
where it, like the sheriffs' in and out
fee bill, was passed over the veto.
While the bill was up for passage over
the veto the niger in it was discov.
cred. 1t was found that the bill gave
to the county clerks between forty and
fifty different fees and that 1t was
not confined to the transcript fees.
Practically every fee that had been col
lected by the county clerks and turn
ed into the county treasury under the
old law was turned into the pockets of
the county clerks by the new one.
Opposed to Bills.
Governor Marshall was opposed to
the two bills. but he could not do any
thing. They had been vetoed once
and the legislature had a right to pass
them over the veto, which it did. He
said there was nothing more for the
governor to do.
But now he proposes to do some
thing. He says that the bills should
have been reported back to the legisla-
ture at the special session held last
September instead of waiting until the
regular session In January. The spec
ial session was the next session after
the one at which they were originally
passed he says. and when the bills
were not reported back to that special
session they lost all OF their right to
be reported back at all. and the veto
stands. For this reason he Will ask
the public accounting board to notify
all clerks and sheriffs to cease pouring
the fee money into their pockets and
to turn 1t into the county treasury In
stead. II Is expected. OF course. that
the board will send out the notices as
requested by the governor. Then II
any sheriff or clerk fails to turn into
the treasury OF his county. the board
will 60 after him. and that win mean
Z law suit that will test the constitu-
tionality or the new fec laws This,
Of course, win bring on hard fight.
for the county officials are organized
throughout the state, and the loss Of
the fees would be = sad blow. When
the two bills were before the legisia-
ture for passase tho county officials