Year: 1879

travesty of the requirements Of the statute. and
is not only in direct violation OF the law. but 1t is
SO evasive as to make 1t impossible to convict the
person making it OF perjury, however false it may
be.


Fouytt-Does tho Clerk habtusly charge and re-
ceivc greater fees than are allowed by law for fling
indexing and recording notices OF the pendency OF
actions?


1t appears from the papers before me that
such notices usually contain from three to ivc
foos. The law authorized the Clerk to charge
ten cents per folio for re Erec9rding them HI His
sbove mentioned is 81 in each case. instead OF
thirty. forty or fifty cents which is the legal
charge for recording notices Of the pendshcsy Of
actions, claims tho right to charge nineteen cents
conts for a certificate. As to the certificate IT is
never required aud never given, and there is no
law authorizing tho charge for nling and indexng.
For the purpose OF answering III part the charge
in regard to illegal fees tor filing. indexng
aud recording notices Of the pendency Of
tcc rules of the Court of Chancery and the fee bill
of that conrt as originally established In tho Re-
vssd Statutes u is concl%siyo h T answer " !" any
made by the Chancellor himself; that whom
his court was abolished by tho constitution
fcrrod to the Supreme Court, which made it's
r,llcs in lieu OF thoss established by the Chan
@
pcuding in the Court of Chancery necessarily fol-
lowed the fato OF that court aud WAS abolished with
it, The charges which may lawfully be madc by any
clerk in any civil action fixed by section 312 OF the
Code as follows:--


SIC. sIa.-The clerk shall receive


On trial. from tho party bringing IL on, one d0lar
on entering * fling s SIX Ss9s
the clerks saared officers and in such courts dol


shall receive other fee for services whatever
civil action @ sSesp Tor espss OF papers, ra'o


OLD FEE BILL nErEALED.


The fee Dill provided for i the Revised Statutes,
is repealed in all it's provisions relating to the clerks
fee. People rel. Williams Supervisors OF Mon
roe county. IS How. 225.


The charge Of folio for recording notices.
no Gy hs
folio in addition to foes allowed for fling
% 'np the 81 Ss &
USs sr Ss ss S s. a
clerk would in most cases. b. nearly double tho amount


As this matter is submitted upon the charges
and the answer. do not consider the charge
that the clerk receives commission on all
moneys deposited in court. and that he makes
illegal charges for administering the oath and CIV
ing o certificate to notaries public, for the
that find it difficult to determine whether the
alleged not. The fees which a clerk may charge
In any action are those specifically named. and he is
forbidden to receive any other fees whatever in such
action. This is plain. simple and direct. No one
misunderstood it. Much has been said about the
uncertainty and confusion in the law In regard to
clerks fees find no such uncertainty. The whole
difficulty comes from the vain and useless
effort to find some law to excuse illegal charges.
There is such law. and if clerks confinc them
selves to the fees fixed and alo we'd by the
statute they will get into no confusion. The
only exception to this remark relates to the fees
for searches regard to which there has been and
is division of opinion. The case of Curtis
vs. McNair in 6sh New York. was referred to us ex-
law was very obscure and unsatisfactory in regard
to the charges which clerks had right to make
question in regard to Searches and upon that ques-
ton the Court were divided, the decision being pro-
dissenting. The case mas not the remotest bearing


FOLLOWING PRECEDENT I'd EXCUSE.


Much stress laid upon the allegation that tho
clerk does not charge more, and in some not
much, as his predecessors and other officers haye
charged. Whether this be true not, is not mate
rial III the disposition OF this The question is
not what others have done, but what has the clerk
done. and does the law justify himI Nothing can
be worse than to, official abuses, on tho
ground that they have been long practisel.
Such practices correct themselves. They grow
of law, each conner In tempted TO improve upon
the illegal cxactions OF his predecessor He transfers
further and further from the restraints Of his o
cial oath II pubic officers sworn to obey the
law and to discharge their sacred trusts
steadily disobey 1t for how obedience
to it be expected from citizens who not in Officer
citizen, should be made to suffer for any trifing
casual unntentonal infraction OF law. But where
y public officer stands ont as % bold and hsbitnal
justiics his guilt by that OF his predecessors. .
toleration Of his course will naturally and surely
lead to q disregard OF all law in the community and
to Q state of anarchy.


auMpLYroN pRpRrvED OF HIS OFFICE


The function of the Executive in dealing with such
o this is not that OF criminal court. He is
not bound to remove except in his discretion which
il TO bc exercised with eye to the higher charge
OF the constitution that he shall take that
the laws faithfully executed And even
with all tho record of past neglect OF duty
and violations OF law on the part OF the
clerk IL wOul1 pernaus be ncqyible IN
es ape tho unpleasant duty Of his removal il in his
entire since this investigation was COM
menced he had not resolutely persisted in his in
fractions of law and given every indication that .
proper discharge OF official duty aud observance
law at his hands was not to be expected in tho
future. He has even attempted to justify the
course which he has hitherto followed and openly
declares his right and intention to continue
1t in the future Inasmuch as 1t seems to
me that in that course he has broken over almost
every requirement of the law ho to obey,
it leaves but one possible course open to II
the Governor. who is specially charged and bound
faithfully executed, should by dismissal of
these charges give an implied sanction to con-
tinuance OF these unlawful practices he would
himself become q partner in them, and tho hope
OF maintaining q government OF law wouh dis
appear. There is view which be taken OF this
moval of the clerk from the Office which he holds.


Since writing the foregoing l havo received
letter from the counsel Of tho clerk requesting IS
delay of my decision until they can carry to
the Court OF Appeals the points made by them
against tho granting Of the mandamus by tho
Supreme Court compelling the clerk to produce his
books. AZ the proceedings before entirely
independent of the msndnmus and free from the
legal rules applicable to the issuing of that process.
and as the msndanus affects only one Of tho many
points raised before me, do not that any de-
csion of the court could change the result. cannot
ind any justification for the delay asked for.


L. ROBINSON.
CAREER OF AN OLD BOOK DEALER.