Mower County transcript. [volume] (Lansing, Minn.) 1868-1915, 1876-03-09
THAT $127.OS.

when his term expired and which was not
subsequently approved until nine days
thereafter. We showed conclusivcly that
said law was not applicable to Williams,
and that he conld not possibly avail him.
self Of its provisions. That done he found
himself compelled to account for his over
draft of $127.98 in some other way, which
he attempted to do.
For the purpose of laying the whole
case bare to our readers, We quote so much
Of the law relating to it as is necessary for
that purpose:
"The Salary Of the County Auditors shall
be regulated by the value Of tho taxable prop
erty in their respective Counties as fixed by
the State Board Of Equalization for the PRE-
CED1NG YEAR"
We emphasize the last clause of the
quotation for it is important that it be I'm.
derstood.
Williams official term began March
1st, 1S71,-hencc his salary for the first
year (not for ten months), was regulated
by the valuation Of the year 1870, and he
so construed the law aud applied it.
In his "FALsEu0oD REFurED," pub.
lished some weeks ago, he says in effect
that he computed his salary for the TEN
MONTHS from March 1st, 1871, to January
1st 1872, upon the valuation of the year
1870, that for the calendar year of 1872,
upon the valuation of 1871,-in 1873, up.
on the valuation of 1872, in 1874 upon the
valuation of 1S73,-and that for the
months Of January and February 1915 re-
spcctively, the last two m onths of his term,
1T was computed upon the valuation Of
1874. He SAYS he so computed his sal
airy, but he DID NOT,-1or did he draw it
upon that basis. During the first three
years and ten months Of Williams official
term he never thought of estimating his
salary for any one year upon two different
bases. His orders drawn by himself, show
that he understood the law correctly. If
he had understood the law as he now con.
strues it, his published statement would
have made all. his orders to confirm to
such construction and when, for the last
two monts of his terminal year, he CON-
putcd his salary upon different and
greater valuation than the one upon which
he had computrd it for the preceding ten
months, as he says he did, he violated the
plain letter OF the law as he had interpre
ted and applied it, during the three years
and ten months Of his official service. If
he had adopted one rule Of computation
and applied it during forty-six months,
(and he had), what right had he to adopt
an other aud different rule for the last
two months? None at all! But if he
had no right to do il, he had a REASON for
doing it. The valuation for 1873, was
$2,776,1s4, giving him an annual salary
Of 81 ,60525. In 1874 the assessment was
made upon the actual value of property,
and resulted in giving an equalized yalua.
ton of $5,s43, 457, which, had it not been
for subsequent legislation limiting salar.
les of County Auditors would have made
the salary of Williams successor $2,11s,-
69,-an increase of $573,44. Williams
was going ont of Office and he coveted
some of that increased salary, and it was
at that time that he adopted the expedient
of making the law of 1876. which was not
a law until nine days after he went out of
Office, apply to him. When our expose
in October last he "took coun.
ser' we suppose, as he said he did when
he claimed that the late law authorized
his dong as he had done, and after study
ing the case three months, published q
statement which the records made by his
own hand show to be cuequivocally false,
and when he took 4555, 96, for salary and
clerk hire during the last two months Of
h;~ torn, he knew that he WA faki00