Buchanan County bulletin. [volume] (Independence, Iowa) 1869-1891, 1878-09-20
County Salaries.

We ilo'lce lhat ehe iss' de of the re-
duction Of the salarier of county Off
GERS is being quite ;',dnstriouslv worked
up in certain O,arters, just at the pres
emu tlme' ! is not the purpose Of the
huL.hr' \ to array itself in opposition
10 'm', demand. We recognize that it
IS "a legitimate and proper question for
consideration by the people of the coun-
ty, and that, standing by itself, the de-
mand for retrenchment in this direction
has reason and justice on its side. II
the salaries were fixed at just figure a
few years ago, when the purchasing
power of money was less, and the cost
of living was greater than now, it GER
tainly looks reasonable that they might
be reduced in like proportion without
mourning the charge of injustice OF
niggardliness.
1t is, however, singular, and per-
haps significant fact, that the move for
retrenchment of salaries, in this county
has always been contemporary with the
desire of somebody or some party to get
into office. 1t is always active and ag-
gressive about election time, and dead
at all other times Another singular
thing about it is; that although the
Board of Supervisors is, in popular es-
timation-though incorrectly, in great
measure-invested with the authority
to set in motion the measure of re-
trenchment, that body has never been
notified that anybody desired reduc-
ton of salaries, except in the way that
the general public has become cogniz-
ant OF it, viz: by the high sounding res
olutions Of partisan conventions, and
the ostentatious pledges of small dema-
gogues who wanted office. No five citi-
zens OF the county, or any other num-
Der, that we ever heard of, have ever
united in petition to the Board to re-
duce salaries. AS before stated, the
movement has been in the hands of the
politicians; it has always sprung into
activity just before election and has
been used in the effort to boost certain
men into office, after which it has been
quietly laid away until the next election.
The present campaign is fair illus
tration of this deceitful pretense of re-
form. The Greenback convention
passed resolution requiring it's candi-
dates to pledge themselves, if elected,
to work for salaries below what is al
lowed by law. Mr.. Williamson, the
candidate for Clerk, thereupen gives
out that he will do the. business of the
Office for 81, 900 exclusive of clerk hire.
Now, what binding force has this pledge,
if Mr.. Williamson should choose to dis
regard it, after he has succeeded by it
in getting tbs. sfiee2 The law allows
him $1,000 a year. Can the Board of
Supervisors prevent him from drawing
the money? If he should die, after his
term of Office, what would prevent his
executors from recovering the full 81
600 per year, by suit, from the county?
But it will be said that Mr.. Williamson
is an honest man, and will fulfil his
pledge. We reply it is not always safe
to pledge man not to do what he has
lawful right to do. This county had
experience in the pledge business dur
ing the anti-monoply rule. The candi-
dates Of that party said, before election,
that $3.50 per day was ample compen-
sation for the county Offices, implying
that they would serve for that sum-
But those of them that were elected
had no compunctions against taking the
salary allowed by law, and they got so
that they could stand a little increase,
when that was attainable An effort
was made in the Anti-Monoply Board,
to cut down the pay of it's members, but
the proposition was defeated by large
majority, one of the members, very
sensibly, as we think, declaring that he
was not going to advertise himself an
ass, by refusing the compensation fixed
by law for his Office
There Is very general misapprehen-
sion of the powers of the Board of Sup
ervisors to reduce salaries. The salar
les of the Clerk, Treasurer, Sheriff and
Recorder, are fixed by law, and are
practically beyond the reach of the
Board. By statute the Clerk is enti-
tied to $4,000 per annum for his person
al services; the Treasurer's compensa-
ton, by law, is the fees of his office, not
exceeding 81 800 the county paying his
clerk; the Sheriff is entitled to the fees
of his Office without limit, and an an
nual salary of $50 from the county
treasury, in county of $1,000 inhabi-
tants. The Recorder also gets the fees
of his Office, be they more or less, and
pays his own clerks. The Auditor is
the only officer whose salary the Board
practically controls. Besides his fees,
which are inconsiderable, he is allowed
such additional compensation as the
Board may deem just and proper. 1t is
proper to say, that Mr.. Smith received
last year but 1929, out of which he
paid 500 to his deputy. Mr.. Hollett
received about 81 900 after paying the
necessary help in his Office. Mr..
Warnes salary was fixed at $4,000 out
which he pays 5000 for help.
But certain candidates are before the
people, whose main claim for considera-
ton is, that they will pledge themselves
to accept less than the legal salary of
the Offices to which they aspire, relying
upon that bribe--it is nothing less, and
so decided by the courts-to induce the
people to elect them. Now, even if
these pledges could be relied upon, this
way of reducing salaries is wrong in