The Eaton Democrat. (Eaton, Ohio) 1875-1903, 1877-04-19
followed precedent which, however

anu OIlc VI pO 1Ol hldhluS 1CPOllS dS
Secretary of the Board of Railroad
Appraisers, IN ADDITION to his PER
DIEM while ATTENDING the session of
said appraisers under the act relating
thereto, vol. SO, p. So. Sec. Z of this
act provides: each county Auditor
shall be paid from the treasury of his
county, the sun of three dollars for
each days ATTENDANCE as o member
of any Board aforesaid under this act,
and five cents a mile going to and re-
turning from its place Of meeting"
/ Mr.. o. informs us that the practice
has been for the Secretary to keep
rough minutes while the Boards are
in session, and after he returns home
make up in proper form, the proceed
ings and certificates of the various
taxing authorities ; and that the items
of $40 and So were for such services
after his return. The law is lame in
not, in terms, providing for such pay
ment AFTER THE BOARD ADJoURNs.
In the 29th item, l. F. Freeman,
Pros. Atty, SS34,SO
are included seven installments of
$685. so each, making $159,5O
The balance of the item is for COM
mission on fines collected.
Under the law (vol. 70, p. CD regu-
lating compensation of Prosecuting
Attorney, graduating it according to
population. MI. Freeman was enti-
tied to $434,0O per annum, which the
law provides shall be paid out of the
County Treasury, on the order of the
Commissioners and the warrant of the
County Auditor, DAT such times and
in such installments as the County
| Commissioners may direct"
The Commissioners of this county
have not, as we are informed, fixed
the times of payments and amounts
of installments of this officers salary
as required by said act, and the result
has been that his salary has been
drawn at irregular periods. .
Mr.. Freeman claims that at the
commencement of the year covered
by your report (Sept. l, 1859 there
was due him on the previous year,
$2l7,00.
We do not undertake to determine
how his account stands further than
to state that from the time he took
possession of the Office on the first
Monday of January, 1874, and up to
the close of your report, (Sept.1 1876
Mr.. F. drew twelve installmenis of
$lOS,50 each, at the dates following,
as shown by book of receipts and dis
bursements, to-wit: May %, 1874;
July l, 1874: Sept. I5, 1874; Jan. 2,
1875; June 2, 1875; Sept. Is, 1875;
Sept. %, 1875; Nov. 4, 1875; Dec. %,
1916; May 81, 1876; June &c, 1876;
Aug. 10, 1876. Since then, to-wit,
Dec. %, 1876, he has drawn another
installment.
W. have found only n voucher
in support of the payments embraced
in item 80, "John III. Bruce, Coroner"
and that is a bill for his fees on an in
quest in Jefferson Township. His
fees as taxed in his bill of costs in this
case, amount to SILL but an order,
No. 496, issued to him for $l2,10, the
discrepancy being, as we suppose,
caused by including in the order, 81,
fee due j. G. McNutt, a juror.
Among the items making up this
$11,10 is a charge, "Horse and buggy
hire, $500" We find no law for the
allowance of such an item. The fees
of Coroner are regulated by the Fee
Act [Sw. Sc Or. 6391 of March 5, 1881,
and under this act he is entitled to So
for view of dead body and travelling
fees each mile ten cents. also is al
lowed fees similar to those allowed in
other cases for writs and writing. We
suppose that a Coroner has no more
right to charge up horse and buggy
hire in his official duties, than q Sher-
if has in the discharge of his duties
when he has to travel. The mileage
is intended to pay for his going to and
returning from the place of duty or
service, and he must get there and
back as best he car
In the payments made and included
in items 33 to 35 inclusive, "Com-
missioners' salary" L contained
some which are not sustained by
vouchers certified to by the Prosecut-
ing Attorney and approved by the
Probate Judge as required by the late
act of March 80, 1875, Tvol. Y, p. 170]
amending Section one of the act to fix
the compensation of County Commits
sioners. This amended section pro-
vides that each Commissioner shall
present an itemized statement of his
account for per diem, mileage, serv-
ices and expenses as aforesaid, which
before it is allowed by a full Board
shall be certified to by the Prosecut-
ing Attorney ofthe county, and ap-
proved by the Probate Judge there
Of"
The vouchers emitting this c%ertifi-
cate and approval were the first made
out after the passage of this amend
ment, and doubtless before your at
tention had been directed to it. For
some Of the payments, Commission
ers' salary" we found no vouchers,
but presume they were mislaid.
We have not been able to ascertain
from MI. J. v. Acton's vouchers
Item 81 whether they are proper
charges against County Fund or
should be paid out of taxes or assess
ments Tor Improved Roads, as they
do not show with sufficient clearness
WIcttct HIS eCl flCCo dS IuSlilCeT Ol
improved roads, were all confined to
preliminary survey" OIL whether they
extend to subsequent surveys, esti-
mates, &c. Section Six of the I'm
proved Road Law [vol. "a, p. S31 pro-
vides "that the costs and expenses of
the PRELIMINARY survey, proceedings
and reports of said Improvement shall
be paid out of the County Treasury"
We are of opinion that after the
improvement is ordered to be made,
the expenses of further views, engi-
neering, estimates, &C., are payable
out of the assessments made on the
lands benefited by the improvement.
We express this opinion not because
we presume any such payments have
been charged to the wrong fund, but
because we understand there has been
some question as to what fund is
chargeable. We may be wrong in our
view.
The amount paid Thos. j. Larsh,
Item 3Sl $22.50, we think should have
been paid out of BRIDGE FUND. The
services charged for are, trip down to
Paint bridge to measure length of
span, $3.50
and making plan, drawings, sc,
for pier of bridge No. 2, &c, 1000