The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1878-09-05
Published by Request.
a Card from Mr.. Paine.
To the Editor of the Herald {:

To the Editor of the Herald:
So much has been said upon the sub
iect of the Auditors fees and salary, and
you have so persistently called on me, as
member of the Examining Committee,
to state what knew upon the subject !;
and endeavored to create the impression
that my silence was in somebody's inter
est in order that the taxpayers of the
county might be defrauded out of that
which belongs to them, that | take this
opportunity to set myself right before
them, by stating what conclusions were
arrived at by the Committee in their ex-
animation of the Commissioners Report.
My absence from the county (not how
ever on visit to Vinton), has prevent
ed my giving attention to the matter
somewhat earlier 1 shall state the facts
as they appeared to the Committee, and
leave the people to form their own con-
| clusions. They are as follows:
The report of the Committee was made
under oath, and l presume all its mem
bers endeavored to act in accordance
Herewith The Commissioners report
embraced their transactions from August
81, 1876, to August 81, 1877. The Legis-
lature of 1875 passed law regulating the
salaries of Auditors, Clerks, Sheriffs, and
Probate Judges. April s, 1876, a new law
was made repeating that of 1873, and pre-
scribng compensation for Clerks. Sheritfs
and Probate Judges, leaving the Auditors
without any law under which they might
draw salaries.
On April "a, 1877, the Legislature pass
ed an act regulating the fees and salaries
of Auditors, and inserted therein clause
making it take effect from April s, 1876,
more than year before the time of its
passage. Such being the condition of
things, 1 suppose if the matter were in
court, the question would be raised,
whether or not this law of 1877 could be
made retroactive The Constitution of
the State of Ohio, Article End, Section %,
begins as follows The General Assem-
bly, shall have no power to pass retroact-
i've laws, or laws inpairing the obligation
of contracts" What the effect of this
provision of the Constitution would be l
am not able to say, but if the law were
held unconstitutional in its retroactive
aspect, then the new law of 1877 could
only have effect upon that portion of the
Auditors compensation embraced be-
tween April "a, 1877 and August 81 1877.
As one of the Committee, l thought 1t
was our duty, however to act upon the
law as IL Stood leaving the question of it's |
to be settled, if settled |
at all, by some more authoritative body |
than ourselves, and our report was made
on the assumption that the law was valid
and binding
The only question that acase in the
Committee on the construction of the lay
of 1877, was in regard to portion of the
lst section which reads as follows: "In
LaVing 2000 male inhabitants
above the age OF 81 years. the county Au
iitor shall receive $1,000 per year. and in
counties having more than 1000 such in
habitants the Auditor shall receive the
ike sums respectively, and in addition
thereto shall receive for each year the
sum OF Is dollars for each additional 100
uch inhabitants above 2OOO in such
county"
Mr. Patterson claimed that under the