Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1922-08-15

WV HEN the bill looking to adjustment
W of the fee system in the larger ooun-
ties of Georgia Is reconsidered in the
House, where 1t failed Of passage last week
by only four votes, 1t should receive even
more than the two-thirds majority which
measures involving constitutional amend
ments require. That it is favored by the
great body of legislative opinion, as we'll as
Of public sentiment, appears In the fact that
upon its first roll call in the House, the Sem
ate having previously approved it, the bill OBJ
tanned one hundred and thirty-four votes out
of one hundred and lightweight present; but
for the large number of absentees 1t, doubt
less, would have received more than the one
hundred and thirty-eight needful. The
House having wisely ordered reconsideration,
friends of this important reform should stand
..gilant, and at the time of decision muster
their utmost voting strength.
AS originally drawn the bill authorized
adjustment of the fee system in any county
where the people should so order; but by a
committee amendment 1t was limited to the
largest six counties, namely Fulton, Chat
ham, Bibb, Richmond, Muscogee and De-
Kalb. The question thus is reduced to sim
ply this: shall the people Of these most popu-
lous counties be permitted to vote on the sub
stitution Of salaries for fees, and have their
will carried into effect? If, and where, they
der for the General Assembly to provide ap-
propriate special legislation. But the OBJ
ject of the pending bill Is merely to remove,
by way of a constitutional amendment. OBJ
stacles which keep the people from deciding
for themselves this peculiarly intimate mat
ter of their local county government Sure
ly, this Is the least that can we'll be granted
under principles of home rule, in traditional
Georgia democracy.
There remains the larger question of the
merits of the salary system as opposed to
fees; and on this the weight of competent
opinion undoubtedly is that fees ought to be
abolished, for reasons both Of expediency and
OF right. Every public servant is entitled to-
fair compensation; but why should some be
permitted, in addition, a great harvesting OF
fees, while others who labor just as diligently
and just as efficiently are limited to salaries?
why should certain offices which require no
exceptional talent or high degree Of training
pay thousands Of dollars more than, say,
jadgeship? Why, in these offices, should the
surplus of, revenue over and above fair sal
airy 60 to the pocket of an individual rather
than to the public treasury? Why should not
that surplus be used for improving highways,
for maintaining schools, or for reducing
taxes? The people contributed 1t; the peo-
pie are entitled to it. These and kindred
considerations, however have been urged so
often and are indeed SO incontestably right
and reasonable, in the larger counties at
least, that tt ere should be no need Of arguing
them. In any view the General Assembly
can we'll afford to give the voters OF the
counties concerned opportunity to decide
local matter for themselves-and that Is the
object OF the pending bill. Let it be pressed
promptly to enactment, because it is reason
able and right, because 1t is democratic and
Just.