The Worthington advance. [volume] (Worthington, Minn.) 1874-1908, 1878-03-28
THE COUNTY TREASURER,

THE COUNTY TREASURER.
- EDITOR ADVANCE: l wish to. say 4
word iii reference to the matter of
County Treasurer. There is not prob
ably any person in the county that OBJ
jects to Mr.. Thompson holding the Of
tice.. There is a question, however, as
to whether lie is doing so legally,
Bissell's Statutes, Page 226, Sec. 81,
as quoted by the Journal, requires that
the Treasurer elect, shall take the oath
of Office and shall file it and his official
bond with approved securities, before
entering upon the duties of his Office.
Sec. 81, same page, reads as follows:
If any person elected to the Office of
County Treasurer shall fail to give
bond, and to take the oath as required
by the preceding section, on or before
the fifteenth Of January next succeed
ing his election, it shall he deemed Il re-
fusal to serve.
Page 2O7, Sec. 2, 9th paragraph, reads
as follows:
A refusal or neglect to take the oath
Of office and to deposit or file such oath or
official bond eoitlst. the time prescribed by
lA,U constitutes u Uacdncy.
Now, these laws were made previous
to the organization of this county, be-
fore it was known, in fact, that Peter
Thompson would care to be a candidate
for Office, or that he would even he q
resident of this county. and were not
intended to have any especial bearing
on his case. Neither Messrs. Condo
nor Miller nor any one of the AD-
VANCE Clique had anything to do with
the making Of them. And yet it seems
plain that in as much us MIR. Thomp-
sons bond was not executed, nor dated
prior to the time required by law, and
was not deposited with the Register Of
Deeds as 50 required until thirty or for
ty days after the time prescribed, and
after the time when the law says plain.
! had become vacant.
True, Mr.. L. has signifed his willing.
ness to accept the office, showing clear.
~ that the law is 1T fault according to
the Journal, but does this showing
have the effect to repeal the law, or t.
modify its provisions in any way?
The question is whether the vacancy
has been legally filled? That it is sotis
factory to US ard the people there is not
shadow Of doubt, but does it fill the
requirements OF the law? It not, the
sureties on his bond for So, 600 could
not be held responsible for Il simple far
thing.
So far as he is concerned he is Treas
urer lie facto, and would he liable to al
the penalties for malteasal!ce in office
! Probably parties would not, Oh account
/ nf IlLA I,.sa nrSf 1,shn
fusing to pay money into his hands.
But his bundsmen Are sureties for the
legal and faithful discharge of his du
by parties who were probably uncon
scious Of the fact chat he had alread,
been guilty of neglect of Il vital and i'm
portant duty III connection with thu
business of his Office; so important, il
fact, that he had already forfeited hi:
right to hold it. The question is, la:
that right been legally reestablished'
Is the bond retroactive? Can the sure
Official duty prior to it's date? No on.
would claim that bond would be goot
it executed prior to the election. /
his right to hold the Office has been re
established since the bond was execut
| cu. ~ NOu!U Ut tludtIy WOftnIeSS.
| The Journal says it was trick Of TIN
| ADVANCE Clique to defraud Mr.
Thompson out Of his vested rights, ant
that the people will have their opinion
about it. We protest that it was moi
our fault that Mr.. Thompson neglected
to qualify. 1t was not our fault tina
the law has been so framed as to max,
the office vacant on account of such ne
glect. We say again, we have not tin
slightest objection to these proceeding
but we have right to doubt whethe
it has been strictly legal.
TAX PAYER,