San Antonio Daily Light

WILL GO TO COURT
JUDGES
AND
CLERKS
WHO
WERE NOT ON THE LIST.
The County Commissioners Allow Pay For Eight Men, as the Law States,
But Presiding
Officers
Refused to
Strike Out Names.

Many people had business before the County Commissioners' court this morning. This is the day set apart for the settlement with judges and clerks for services rendered at the general
election of November 8.

When court opened and this matter was taken up, which was the first in order, the court-room was crowded with men anxious to learn their fate.

As was announced in Saturday's Light, the commissioners held that no more than eight men, including presiding officer, judges and clerks, were allowed by law at any poll. Nearly all of the presiding officers' reports showed that were over eight men in the polls. The presiding officers were then instructed to give the names of those that were entitled to compensation.

The scramble then began. Some of the officers gave the names, while others refused on the ground that all were entitled to pay. This created an opening for argument, in which everybody took part, and there were some warm passages.

The question arose as to who authorized the appointment of judges and clerks. Commissioner Salliway referred to the statutes which state that eight men are required for a poll in which one hundred votes or more are cast.

A copy of typewritten instructions was produced, which had been provided to the presiding officers regarding judges and clerks. This was the synopsis of an opinion given by Judge R. B. Green in response to queries from several members of the Citizens' ticket as to the construction of the law. This was explained by Nat Lewis who referred to Thad W. Smith to bear him out. The substance of Judge Green's opinion, which was not rendered in court, is that as many judges and clerks should be appointed as are deemed necessary.

The commissioners, however, held up the statutes, which they took as their guide. Some precincts had as many twelve men in the polls, which would leave four men without pay. Some of the presiding officers in order for indiscrimination refused to throw any names out. The bills were consequently not approved. Other officers gave the names of four authorized clerks, but specified no judges. The court would not pass on these bills, as they were incomplete. Judge Jonas stated that the presiding officer is the one who shall decide who was and who was not duly appointed. In some cases the presiding officers stated that all of their judges and clerks were there with the proper authority.

Some of the judges and clerks showed regular credentials and their names were scratched. In one instance in which the number was exceeded by two the names were placed on slips of paper and two that were taken out were scratched from the list. One of these showed a credential as representative of the Democratic party.

John H. Claridge was in court in the interest of the People's party. He stated that none of the People's party representatives had as yet been recognized.

Commissioner Salliway stated that he wants to see everybody get his money, but that the court must follow the statute. He agreed to attend to the matter of providing cost bonds for those who will institute legal proceedings and also assist in obtaining counsel to represent them.

Mr. A. E. Heilbron, attorney took part in the discussion.

Mr. Heilbron and Mr. T. J. McMinn will bring suit in the District courts to establish the liability of the Commissioners' court in this matter.

Mr. Nat Lewis said that while the statutes state that eight men are required at the polls, the intended meaning is that no less than eight men are required, but that as many more can be appointed as are deemed practicable.

Very few of the election bills were approved by the court, as many presiding officers refused to strike out any names of judges and clerks in their precincts and the court did not approve any accounts in which all the names required were not given.