, 1840-04-25

iof Tue yeaI 1905, SuCh aS copying dSsesS-
ment, extending taxes, making abstract Of
real estate, aggregate statement oftaxes, &c.
made out my account Charging the state of
Missouri) and forwarded the same by letter,
to the auditor of public accounts, requesting
him to audit the same, and to forward to me
by letter, q warrant for the amount allowed.
The account was allowed by the auditor, and
he forwarded to me by letter, a check on the
bank Of Missouri, for the amount; being,I be-
~lieve, eighty dollars and ninety-six cents.-
Ia his letter enclosing the check, the auditor
says, " although l am satisfied Of the cor
|" rectness Of your account, yet, | would pre-.
4" fer that Il should be certified under the seal
" Of the court; you will be pleased to make
" duplicate, certified under the seal Of the
" court, andreceipt the same as of this date,
" and send it by return mail with an ac-
" knowledgment of the receipt of this with
" its enclosure" The acknowledgment and
receipt, l forwarded as requested, but ] did
not forward a duplicate of my account certi-
fled under the seal Of the court, for the rea-
son assigned in my letter to the auditor /:
which was in substance, that l considered
the seal Of the court, could only be used
with propriety, to authenticate the process Of
the court, copies Of its proceedings, &c.; and
not to authenticate a matter which was
strictly personal to myself, merely because /
happened to be the keeper of that SEAL
The auditor, | believe, did write to the court,
or some member or members of it, upon the
subject, requesting him, or them, to have the
account acted upon by the court, and certi-
fled under seal; at least, it was so acted up
on-and, with the exception of four dollars
and twenty-five cents, which the court
thought was chargable against the county,
allowed and certified; but, what the auditor
may nave written to the court, or to the men,
Der or members whom he addressed, | know
not. And with regard to the allowance of
this account, and of all similar claims against
the state, | intend neither to discuss nor de-
eide the law, but | doubt not, that 'Umenes,'
and his readers will discover, if they take
the trouble to read the second article Of the
Revenue law Of 1885, (Which in this particG-
lar remains unaltered and unrepealed0 that |
had done all that the law required me to do,
when | had forwarded my account to the au-
ditor in the first instance; the 37th section of
the Cd Article making that officer sole Judge
IN the case, without any reference whatever,
TO the county court. And, moreover, for
similar services in the two preceding years,
| forwarded accounts in the same manner,
which were severally allowed and paid with
out scruple. 'Umenes' makes a great mis-
take in supposinglIthat the. lcounty court,
should, or can draw a warrant on the state
treasury, for any sum, in any case.
But this ssuditor's tFansaction'' is not the
matter for which these triple or quadruple
fees are alleged to have been charged; this
being a claim against the county, may be said,
perhaps, to come nearer home; and believe,
as minated by 'Umenes,' that the cry was
first raised by the senior member of the court,
who alleged, as | am informed, that the clerk
had charged the state and county for the
same service, and had charged the county
three or four Tor perhaps more9 times as
much as the law allowed; having, as he said,
charged the state for making out the state
~tax-list, and charged the county for making
out county t~ax-list, being the same identical
list.
The facts of the case are these. The
Clerk charged the state of Missouri, as above
stated, for his several services in relation to
the state taxes, but no charge against the
county for a county ~tax-list, as alleged, ever
existed, as all the members of the court we'll
know. The clerk did certainly claim a COM
pensation "for his services in relation to
county revenue" which services are not the
mere extension of those columns of figures,
representing the amount Of each ones county
tax, but embrace the tedious service of COM
p~utation also. This tax being a certain rate
per centum upon the amount of state taxes,
renders indispensably necessary, a separate
and careful calculation upon that basis, in or
der to ascertain the exact amount of each in
dividual's county tax; and for this service,
compensation was claimed by the clerk, and
aAoUed,C(and as | always supposed, under
standingly9 by the court.
Every body knows, or may know, that the
clerk, like all other persons, has to submit to
the county court for its allowance, all his
claims against the county, Of whatever ma
ture they may be, and that he annot draw a
single dollar from the county treasury, until
the court shall have allowed his claim and
drawn their warrant signed by the President
=