this should be a salaried officer. It is the
peculiar duty in-posed upon him in relation
to citizens of the State, which is of a very
delicate character; for he is constituted
judge; and upon his judgment depends the
fee he is to receive. For instance, in a cer
tain state of facts, under a certain determi
nation upon his part he receives nothing
while if he determines the other way he re
ceives his fees in the ordinary way. This is
a temptation which ought to he removed out
of the way by making this a salaried office.
There should be no temptation whatever to
swerve his judgment or tempt him in any
case. I think this is really one of the most
controlling reasons which should govern the
convention in giving him a salary, and re-
quiring that the perquisites of his office
should go to the State. The State I conceive
will not be injured by it, as according to the
data presented by him, about $2,300 annu-
ally would go into the treasury department
from him as the incumbent of that office.
Mr. NEGLEY. If this office is an office
without labor, or if it is continually decreas-
ing, arising from the abolition of the court
of chancery by the last convention, it is a
matter for the consideration of this conven-
tion whether they will continue an office
which has no duties to be performed and tax
the State with a certain amount of salary tor
the payment of the officer. If, as I under-
stand from the argument, the duties of the
commissioner of the land office and of the
keeper of the chancery records, are continu-
ally diminishing, by reason of the fact that
the court of chancery was abolished by the
last convention, and that the time is rapidly
approaching when there will be no duties
for him to perform at all, excepting a few
duties with regard to the land office, would
it not be better to continue the office so long
us the present incumbent has been elected to
fill it? and after that time would not the
business of the offices be so diminished that
there would be no necessity for a special offi-
cer for that purpose, because the legislature
might make provision for the keeping of the
chancery records, and for the performance of
the duties of the commissioner of the land
office? I presume there will have to be some-
body there now; but some provision could
be made to abolish the office after the expi-
ration of the time for which the present in-
cumbent was elected. We could authorize
the legislature to make provision at that
time. I think the convention ought not to
create this new office, and continue it for
years at such a salary, without a necessity
for it. These are not the times when such a
thing as that should be put upon the people
of the State, who are going tu be overbur-
dened with taxation, and whose endurance
in that direction is going to be tried to its
utmost capacity. We ought to be careful on
this subject, and not continue an office which |
the public wants do not require, and for the
discharge of whose duties there is no neces-
sity. I must confess I am not conversant
enoughe with this subject to indicate to the
convention a policy, but really I think the
convention ought to be careful how they
proceed with this.
Mr. BAKER, I think the convention is la-
boring under a mistake in regard to the fees
of this office. Being one of that committee,
my recollection is that the salary went to
$1,500 some three years ago. Since that the
fees have increased very much; I think as
much as $800. Instead of the fees decreasing
annually, for the last two years they have
gradually increased.
Mr. HEBB. The commissioner informs me
that the fees of the office are more now than
they ever were; that the receipts of the last
year are more than of any one of the previ-
ous four years. The receipts since he went
into the office average $2,200. This section
proposes to cut it down to $1,800.
Mr. DANIEL. We had a statement before
us, prepared by this officer himself, showing
the average of these fees; and certainly my
recollection differs from some of the gentle-
men who have spoken. My impression is
that probably for two or three years, on ac-
count of the troubles of the war, they have
decreasd very suddenly, and recuperated
a little; but to suppose that these fees will
ever again amount to $2.600 or $2,700
annually is, I think, totally preposterous. In
all probability the fees of the commissioner
of the land office will gradually decrease.
Yet I am not for abolishing the office. I
think it is a proper and necessary office. I
think there is a good deal to he done. And
in future acts of legislation there may be
more to do. The riparian rights may be re-
stored again; and then we shall have some
officer to attend to it.
It certainly has been said that it is a very
important matter to have a keeper of the
chancery records. I do not believe, even
with the $500 from the legislature, the fees
would amount to $2,000 a year. The fees
would probably amount to $1,200 a year
now. We thought that he ought to have a
fixed salary, and fixed it at $1,800.
Mr. NEGLEY. Does the gentleman think it
necessary to continue the office indefinitely?
Mr. DANIEL. Yes, sir; it is an office of
importance. We must have some officer to
do that work.
Mr. NEGLEY. Could not the legislature
transfer the duties to some officer of the court
of appeals by and by, say five years hence?
Mr. DANIEL. I do not know about by and
by; I am only judging for the present.
Mr. NEGLEY. Yet the duties are gradually-
becoming less and less. I do not know how
they can be increased by legislative action.
I think now that as the fees are decreasing,
the duties may be decreasing. I think how- |
