The New York herald., 1874-10-01

appear irom Tie biuhdefs you make IN your qnDta-
uons from the statutes ana alluslons to decisions
not to be found III the books, tnat you have pre-
pared yourself ior your attack on me by !ae peru
Sal ol some such work as Every Man HIS own
lawyer ProDabsy II you had conferred with Il
LAWYER before tak!ng snen a step, he would nave
suggested 10 you the proyerb that ''Ee wio Is his
own lawyer has ool Tor his client"
TIE Law AS TO SHERiFF's FEES.
The following Is a brlel statement OF the law in
regard to rue lees of the sheriff.
Il, the Revised statutes q Edmonds, p. 35T
II Is provided that the following snail be county
chafges;-'- The coanpensatioBs oi sherlffs Tor
the coinmltinent anu discharge OF prisoners in
Criminal processes .. reason
able compensation 10 consta oles and other officers
Ior eXecuthg process on persons charged with
criminal ohences. ior services and expenses III
conveying prisoners 10 JAN 4" and for other
services 'h relation to criminal proceedings ior
whlch no specific compensation Is prescribed by
law. o. The expenses incurred for the support OF
persons Charged or convicted OF crime.
l. Moneys necessarily expended bv any county
omcer IN executing the duties his oice IN
WhIcn no spechc compensation is provided by law"
Such accounts to be presented Io the Board OF
Supervisors and audited by them. Also t2 Ed
general or special election, 81 lor each town Or
ward IN tue county, aud the expense OF publish
constable the same ices are allowed by law Tor
such services To a constable; for sunmoning con-
staoies 70 atteno the Supreme Court or any other
court, nifty cents tor each constable. Also e ID,
l's)-For every person committed 10 prison,
tnlrty seven ana hall cents, and like sum for
each person discharged; Tor suminonlng n Grand
Jury, $40; for conveying prisoners House or
Refuge, such sum as shall be allowed by the SUI
ptlNl-ols. lisuNs VI 1903, CHAP. lo4 D. 1oS.l
Tine Board OF Supervisors tnav allow such FUR
ther compensation or the service of process, Ne.,
as they may deem reasonable. For otner services
IN criminal cases, Tor winch no compensation Is
specially prescribed oy law. such sum as the Board
0i Supervisors Of the county may aiiow.'
THE suMMON1NG OF JURORS.
me Revised statutes. part 3 chapter Z title !,
article . section Il 70. 6ss, 5th Edmonds,,
, serve mem; ,n sections SS and log p: 7lS
4 In criminal. but civil the
cult Court, superior Court, Court OF Common
Pleas and General Sessions section ITO also
seems to be fixed tor this service. Tne sum or
aty cents TO be collected OF the attorney g r. $.
compensation contemplated as The Shern is
aso TO summon Jurors 'os The oyer anS
he Is entitled to charge for he Tor the other.
His compensation. therefore, Is to be fixed,
audited and allowed by the Board or Supervisors,
Us they have done for the past thirty years, under
) r: $, 2. los, SEE sec y IN the ca case 'ysi o.
AZ, wnere District Attorney was charged wItu
procuring from the supervisors lees not author
certain services the Legislature has given to of1
GERS speched ice, and they are forbidden to take
more; NOR Gut when nc ice mas been prescribed by
how much or how little shall be charged ior any
service which may be rentered." In the case OF
p ,r 2s5; it was no.la decided @ that wnen
onicer by the Legislature he was entitled
10 reasonable compensation TO be audited by
sad:-"rne performance Of the duty may be, aud
generally must be, attended with expense, aud
there IS no reason why the officer should lose both
his time and his money without Just cOmpensa
tlon. IL Is very probable, too. that the reason
why no fixed sum was given was tnat the Legls-
la ure knew the principle upon which the courts
had acted, and thought thar justice would be bet
ter oone Dy leaving the amount of the compensa-
ton to the Supervisors tnan by giving a gross
winch cases might be liberal and in
down IN Bright vs.. Supervisors OF Cnenango
case Of People. ex rel. Han vs.. Supervisors
Of New York t52 N. y, 475), where the county was
Watsrpury's EXCISE cases, the Court OF Appeals
held thai each county was chargeaple In the
ton, with the moneys necessarily expended oy
any county ofllcer In executing the duties OF his
once and snat wsre necessary
tomary IN the discharge of the particular official
duty.
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
When my bills were sent lu to the Board OF
Supervisors either l or my under snerilr invari-
ably went De,ore them and explained the different
| charges contained IN them, SO that IN auditing
my claims they knew exactly what tney were
founded upon; AS was dssiaea BY Judge Bronson
Dsss ,s taey were
the charges came within the statute. ana
their determination Is q conclusive adjudication
upon the point. | Indignantly deny the insinua
or any OF them, ~ amy time, or that used any
improper influences 10 procure payment OF my
Of IT, % Of
my bill for September 80, 1860, was made because
the records OF the convictions from the lower
Courts had not ueen flied with the Clerk oi tue
General sessions matter over whicn had no
control. Tue position which You take IN regard to
Part ". Of the Revised Statutes q Edmonds,
= ~ Ct eq3 u,ea y you at
mentioned have no reference to Sheriff, conse.
quently that section has no enecr. Your position
that there IS no authority or the payment by the
Board OF Supervisors OF the Sherinss oils or this
county Tor these services Is ridiculous. Tue prac-
tice, as you yourself admit, has lasted in most IN
stances 0r over thirty years. and existed through
out the state. 1t Is not only sanctioned by long
usage, but Is the fair and reasonable construction
your mere assertion TO establish the contrary. The
reason why AN increased compensation was allowed
was was ooyous. @ The lee oi ssyenty.nye cents was vas
liked thirty-iour years previously In the
meantime values mad changed greatly. Thirty.
icur years ago the Mayor's salary was
amount to some $4,000. Labor tnat in 1881 cost
but 81 In 1865 commanded I'VE times that sum-
psia to my deputy as h,sH as 81 eaca; aad the su.
pervlsors accordingly raised the compensation as
aey aaa eTal :at& & 70 do 10 80 lar IRON oT al pens n
oners conveyed TO Dlackwels Island upon convlc-
tions exceeding year was 81 90 Tor each prisoner.
In regard to my charges Tor commitments and dis
charge Of prisoners, upon which you lay such
stress, the lacts are as ioiiows:-
Upon my hrst election as Sheriff was advised
by my counsel that was entitled to make TINS
charge, as had been done by my predecessor.
bill, which was paid by comptroller HaWs. Upon
the presentation OF my next bill The Comptroller
Vi counsel. TOOK the payment of tue remainder
under protest, but finally, as | wanted nothing
ABOUT wnicn II lalr question could be raised, de-
clded that would not insert 1t again iu my bills,
although my counsel were positive III their
opinion that IL was charge l was en-
regularly inserted this charge IN mis- bills
during MS term Of office. Mr.. Haws declined
To pay him as he mad me, and Lyncn took the
money under protest. subsequently he succeeded
IN recovering the money from the county, thus re-
ceivlng payment for the whole amount, some
s5l,0Oo II lad done tnis-and there was no
reason wny should not--l should have received
at least 100000 more from the county than
actually did.
THE PETIT LARCENY CHARGE
You are pleased to assert tnat nave been guilty
OF petit larceny IN charging nity cents Tor sum-
MVNlng CQustableS 10 aLleud the SESSIONS oil the