Muscatine weekly journal. [volume] (Muscatine, Iowa) 185?-1890, 1859-07-29
For the Journal

yesterday the communication of t'Tax nav.
err asking an explanation Of my late annual
report as to the amount Of fees received bv |
the County officers during the past fiscal
year, the amount reported being $7lO.25.
s'Tax- payer" says that this amount is much
smaller than the sum total of fees collected
by the County officers, according to a state
ment made by me in public meeting some
months ago; anil, further, if STOPS ia the
balance struck between the officers, then my
report does not show the total expenditures
of the County.
1t is true that the amount of fees received
by the officers (not by the County, is much
larger than that sum : yet think that Tax
payer" is wrong and the report is right, for
the following reasons:
The Judges Annual Rer ort should be a
statement of the receipts and expenditures
OF the County. Nothing can be properly
charged to the County rs a cash receipt un-
less it be paid into the Cou.,y Treasury
and the County cannot be credited with q
payment unless such payment be made out
of the Treasury. Now, the fees which the
different officers are authorized to charge and
collect are not in the first place paid into
the Treasury; they are not even, in The lam
guage OF the law. received by or for the
County. Sec. 2l3 of the Code provides that
'lhe said officers (meaning those entitled to
collect fees)' may receive such fees to their
oa0n use jointly, to the exte It of their s'seve-
raj salaries, &C." t is further provided
that the officers shall account together ono
quarter-tllat The total amount of fees
received by all shall be equally divided be-
tween them-that if the sum so divided
does not equal their salaries then due, they
may draw the balance on sal aries from
the treasury-and if the fees exec the sal-
aries, the surplus is to be paid into the
| treasury.
As tie fees are received by the officers
ITO their own use jointly, &c, it seems clear
that SUI eli receipts cannot be properly called
receipt by the county, and the application
OF the fees to the payment of salaries, is not
a county expenditure, in the strict sense of
that term. The money does not come into,
nor is it paid out of the county treasury; un-
less there be surplus as before stated.
For the information of Taxpayer"
su5join the following statement Of fees re.
ceived during the past year, to wit:
1858, July lst-Fees received. ss7l.5o
" Salary paid Judge, Treas
urer, and Clerk, 10000
Paid into Treasury, $l2l so
" oct. lst-Fees received, SAILS
Salaryp'd Judge, Treas'r,
and Clerk, $4,000
Amt of Salaries paid out of Treasury, $500. IS
1859, JAM lst-Fees received, 1925. 80
" Salaries p'd Judge, Treas
Cfk and Pros. Atty, $500
Paid into Treas'y, $751;.
Apl. 1st-Fees received, ss4945
Salaries pc Judge, Treas,
and Clerk, 74lso
Paid into Treasury, s2o7 65
The total of the amounts paid into the
treasury July l, 1858, January and April l.,
1859, is $7lO,25-the amount reported.
The fees rece ived during the quarter en-
ding Oct. 1st. '5s, did not equal the salaries
of Judge, Treasurer, and Clerk, for that
quarter by 1902, s5-the deficiency was paid
out of the treasury, and was strictly coun-
ty expenditure.
"Tax-payer'' also asks why report of
the School Fund was not made. Upon this
subject all have to say is the law of 1858,
requires me to settle with the county Treas.
urer on the lst of February in each year,
and make my school report to the Auditor
of State. No other report on School Fund
is required OF the County Judge. But as
considered it due to the public that the con-
dition of the fund should be known, on the
Both of March last, prepared report
showing the amount of school moneys re
ceived to thai date, and the amount sppor-
toned to each Township District in the
county, which report was publ ished in both
the city papers. Respectfully,
Z. II. THAYER.
July 18th '59 County Judge.