The Lakeland evening telegram. (Lakeland, Fla.) 1911-1922, 1916-03-02

/ Hon. F. VI. Hudson, one OF the candi'
dates for governor, returning from a
tour of South Florida. being seen by a
Democrat representative yesterday.
had the following to say on the free
question:
Compensation OF county officers ex-
ceeding that of the governor. the
United States senators and even that
of the chief justice OF the United
States. as IL is said some now receive,
should not be allowed A readjust-
ment is essential. but this is no new
question. II is a difficult problem
which has had the earnest attention
of the Legislature during several
sessions.
IL has been proposed by many diff
ferent plans 10 put all officers on a
salary basis.
BY one plan IL was proposed to
grade all salaries according to popu-
lation. This plan might be ideal
If many people meant much work
and few people little work. for an
officer; but investigation shows that
such Is not the case. For example,
one officer In county was found do
ing probably ten times as much
work a. the same officer in another
county of twice the population The
latter would do one-tenth as much
work as the former and draw twice
as much pay. This is scarcely
justice or economy
Other plans have been proposed
for arriving al salary basis. but in
every case secious practical obstacles
have been encountered.
Another question: When we pay
the county officer a salary. how much
help shall We allow him? Shall he
be permitted TO employ all he wants
al the county's expense?
If we would get at the funda-
mental proposition we must deal sep
arately with the duties of county Of
ficers. II is fundamentally wrong
that any officer connected with the
administration Of Justice
administration of justice should be
dependent, for his compensation. up
on contingent fees. But there is no
good reason, as matter of principle,
why services performed for an indi-
vidual. such as the recording of in
struments or the service of progress
in civil cases, should be treated on
the same basis. In such case the
essential feature is that the individ-
ual should pay what the service is
worth, and no more.
The necessary readjustment will
never be secured by means of a
blanket" law. Official compensa-
ton will have to be fixed, county by
county, and the problem must be ap-
preached from several different
angles.
For example. assessors and collec-
tors of taxes can be most convenient
ly compensated by means of commits
sions. as under the existing law; but
the commissions can be so graduated
as to confine the total compensation
10 any desirable limit.
In other cases. the first and great
est needs is not for salaried officer
but for a reasonable charge for his
services. We must take the counties
and the officers one and one, ascer-
tain whether they are overpaid. and
IL they are. reduce the fees. If it is
worth one dollar to record an in
struinent. why should we allow the
clerk TO collect two, and pay one
OF them into the treasury? Pay him
what his services are worth and
make the tax dodger put that other
dollar into the treasury.
When II became necessary to regu-
late by law the amount of interest
which money lenders might exact,
no one thought of allowing them to
charge fifteen per cent and pay a
third Of it into the treasury? The
statutes simply fixed ten per cent as
the maximum legal rate.
So now the first step logically to-
wards a proper readjustment of off
cial compensation is to reduce fees
in certain ances.---Tallahasse
Democrat