Arizona republican., 1910-06-02
CLERK f. s. DUALEVY
 SUES THE COUNTY THE OBJECT TO SETTLE THE FEE
 QUESTION. The Power of the Legislature Regard ing Clerks Offices May Also
 Be Determined.

| E. s. Dunlevy, clerk of the district court, yesterday brought suit against | the county for the recovery of the difference between $35S.70 the amount of the fees for miscellaneous ! services he reported 10 the board of supervisors, for. the months of Octo
 Der, November and December, and ] s44.S0, the amount the board allowed. The dispute arises out of varied ] construction put on the act of the last
 legislature, which 1t is alleged on the part of the county sought to hold the l remuneration of clerks of courts in counties of the first class down to
 s2.400 year; that Is. the remunera | tion they should derive from the county.
 The law provided that all fees in excess of that sum (the fixed salary co llected. received or earned by the clerk in either civil or criminal cases
 should be paid into the county treas ury on the first day of January and
 the first day of July.
 The amount of $44S0 allowed by the board made up the full amount of the salary of s2,40O. All the rest was re- jected because the board believed that
 was all the clerk was to receive from the county but it was the contention of Mir. Dunlevy that there were many fees which had not arisen out of either civil or criminal causes"
 It was the belief of the board based on an opinion by Attorney General Wright, and agreed to by District At torney Bullard, that all fees were re | lated. or were intended to be related to civil or criminal causes. A con trary opinion was held by Messrs
 Kibbey. Bennett and Bennett, the at tOrneys for MT. Dunlevy. It was to
 settle the point that the dispute has
 been brOught-to find out what the
 legislature actually meant-but it is
 possible that before the case is end
 ed another matter will be settled. | The first opinion of the attorney
 general as to the construction Of the statute was dated April 9. but on | April IS the attorney general again wrote District Attorney Bullard call | ing attention to a phase of the matter concerning which there had been no l inquiry-the right of the legislature to l interfere with the clerks, fees at all
 The attorney general cited the case of
 the United States against MMillen. relating to clerks fees in the terri tories, in which it had been held by | the United States supreme court that
 they are fixed by federal statute. Un- der that decision. the attorney general
 believed that Act 69 of the legislature | of 1909 was void. It was the belief
 of the attorney general that the clerk
 could. if he desired. charge the same
 fees for territorial business which he
 is allowed for federal business, the
 latter fees for similar service being
 considerably higher.
 | Under the present federal law. the
 clerk is not required to report emOlu-
 ments except in United States cases,
 and MT Wright did not believe that
 the legislature could compel him to
 report them.
 In view of these things, for the 1 benefit of litigants in territorial courts.
 it was the opinion of the attorney | general that the board of supervisors of this county should seek a comprO- | mise with the clerk. This opinion | was concurred in by District Attorney | Bullard.