The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1914-10-06
THE TREASURER FEES
CONTINUED from Page one.1

CONTINUED from Page OneJ
law they belong to me and are both
legally and rightfully mine. There IS
no law against my accepting them
but there is a law which authorizes
me to collect a fiscal agency commits
sion of not to exceed one-eighth OF
one per cent for disbursement of fiscal
agency funds.
"The attorney general held. months
ago in a lengthy opinion, that they
were my personal property and that
the law of 1911 did not operate
against my accepting them. This is
what he says: He (the state treas
urer) may exact any commission ne
sees fit for his services as fiscal agent
so long as 1t does not exceed one
eighth of one per cent me natter
Of charging the commission IS Will
in his discretion whether he charges
any commission at all. 1t being LETT
to the treasurer's own discretion
whether or not he will charge a COM
mission would leave Section Z. OF the
act of 1911, nothing upon which 70
operate so far as the treasurer's COL
lections are concerned under the ACT
of 1909 (The act of 1908 contains
the provision granting the state treas
urer the right to collect q commis-
sion.) Under the old law bank IN
New York received these commits
sions: under the new law citizen OF
Kansas. a trusted state officer, receives
them.
I'm the Nation VS.. Tulley case the
contention of the attorney general Is
horne out absolutely by the supreme
court wherein it said: The fees in
question when collected by the plain
tiff became and were his property. 10
hold otherwise would involve the
manifest absurdity that under an act
, simply permitting the auditor 10
charge nothing or any sum up 10 n1ty
cents for each utility bond registered,
and providing that he should be en-
titled to whatever fee he saw mt to
collect, he would owe no duty to the
state whatever to col1ect.-N. ". T.,
| Sc Kan. $50.
"Acting upon this supreme court de-
| cision, the fees were paid to Mr.. Ma
| ton. who was the state auditor involved
| in the suit to clear up this matter. Mr..
Tulley, the state treasurer preceding
me. collected these commissions and
was justly and legally entitled to every
cent Of them.
In the State VS.. Dawson case, just
recently decided. the supreme court held
that no fees were affected by the act
except those covered by the specific
statutes referred to in the act itself.
thus clearly defining the attorney gen.
erals right to accept and retain the
fees paid him for the prosecution OF
! liquor cases.
THUS it resolves itself to this and
| this alone: Twice the supreme court
has made it plain that the state treas
urer is legally entitled to the commits
sion, the attorney general long ago held
| that the state treasurer was entitled tc
them and even the present day critics
! agree that there Is no legal barrier
against it-all Of which being true is
conclusive evidence that II the state
treasurer is legally right in the conten-
ton no moral barrier rests against such
officer other than that which interested
politicians seem inclined to inject Into
this campaign.
And remember this-no state fund Il
in any way involved in this controversy
AS fiscal agent the state treasurer il
simply the custodian and disbursinl
agent of the various towns and munich
| palities of Kansas If there could b
any merit to this belated campaign
criticism 1t falls flat when the publ
understands that in no possible In
stance could these commissions be tn
property of the state when they ar
paid the state treasurer by the mu
inequalities of the state and not by tn
state itself. The fiscal agency balanc
is never the property of the state-in
stead it is an aggregate balance mad
up of municipality funds merely sent
the state treasurer for disbursement
through his Office