The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1877-02-02
ovERsEER OF THE POOR.

The general statutes require the election
by every town in the state, at the annual
March meeting, of an overseer of the poor
by ballot but it further provides that
when the town shall fail to appoint an
overseer, or when the office shall become
vacant, the "selectmen shall be overseers
of the POOR" and shall perform all the
duties required by law of the overseer
The town treasurer is, also, required to
pay all orders drawn by the overseer, and
upon his neglect or refusal to do SO, the
holder of the order may maintain an ac-
ton against the town to recover the amount
of the same. Under these provisions Of
law, the overseer of the poor has had full
swing, as indeed the statute seems 10 con-
template that they should have; for it is
provided that he should have the care and
oversight of all poor and INDECENT persons
so long as they are charge on the town,
and shall see that they are suitably relieved,
supported and employed at the charge of
the town, and may draw orders on the
town treasury for the expense of such re-
lief and care.
Under these statutes, a practice has pre-
vailed in some towns of neglecting to ap-
point an overseer, 80 that the selectman, by
force of the statute, become overseers in
elected overseers of the poor in others,
the first selectman has been elected to that
office; while in still others care has been
taken to keep the offices of selectmen and
overseer of the poor entirely distinct. Rut-
- land has, at times, followed the last two
methods In 1867 and 1868, the same per-
son held the Office of both first seectmen
and overseer of the poor, but since that
time the Offices have been distinct. at the
last session Of the legislature, however, in
consequence of apparently we'll grounded
complaints OF Encouragement and gross
extravaganza in the office of overseer of the
poor in this town, law was enacted pro-
viding "that no order drawn by the over
:" seer of the poor shall be paid by the town
treasurer, or be of any force as an obli-
"gation against the town, unless such or
der shall have the approval of the first
selectman of the town endorsed thereon" "
That there was an urgent necessity for
such law, every intelligent citizen OF
Rutland will freely admit. Aside from the
necessity which existed in this particular
case, it must be conceded. we think, that
the law is wholesome and proper on gen.
eral principles With the exception of
this one office, there is hardly an office
draw public money is not restricted and
guarded in some way. Even selectman
cannot draw a valid order. To make it
valid and binding on the town, it must be
approved and signed by majority of the
board. So with village trustees. So with
accounts against the state and county
they must be approved and allowed by an
officer other than the one contracting them.
So much for the propriety of the new en-
actment.
What the effect of the act of 1876 is, may
become an important question. Does it
render the offices of first selectman and oyeI-
oSSi VI tuC pun iuCOlupdIlUlty bU luhI they
cannot be held by one and the same per-
son If not, of what use is the law? 1t
seems absurd to say that John Doe may
draw an order on the treasurer as overseer
of the poor, and then approve it as first
selectman. Such, evidently, was not the
intention of the law makers. The law was
enacted for the purpose of guarding the
town against the reckless extravaganza and
gross Encouragement of an overseer of
the poor but If one and the same person
can hold both offices, and in one capacity
contract debts and draw orders, and in the
other capacity approve of them, and thus
charge the town, then the law is practically
worthless. We call attention to this ques-
ton, because we understand movement
is on foot to continue the reign of extrava-
gance by nullifying this most proper law by
the election of the came person to both OF
the offices of overseer of the poor and first
selectman. Can 1t be done !?