The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1878-04-11
REVIEW OF THE REPORT
OF MEssRs. RAFF, BALDWIN AND
SHIELDS.
Errors Of the Committee Pointed Out--They Do
Injustice to Worthy OGlcers-And Dodge
Where They Ought to Speak Out-EVen
Lawyers Not lnfalllble on Law.

In last weeks DEMOCRAT was published
the report of Messrs. Raft, Baldwin anc
Shields, the committee to examine anc
report on the financial doings Of the
Commissioners for the fiscal year ending
September 1st, 1877. The first two gen
tlemen were appointed by the Judge o
the Court of Common Pleas, and the las
named, being Prosecuting Attorney acted
ex offiCio.
The doings of the Commissioner
only are subject to examination and re-
port, not the amounts drawn from the
Treasury through other authorities over
which the Commissioners have no con-
troll. We have frequently, of late, refer
red to the enormous cost upon Stark
county of the Courts, criminal and other
legal expenses, amounting in the aggre'
gate to near twenty eight thousand dol
lars year, swallowing up almost the en-
tire county fund, allowed to be collected
! by law for all county purposes.
We should like to ask ourthree learned
legal friends of the committee, or any
other three of our able lawyers, if there
is no remedy for this. Is there no posi-
bility of Curtailment? Would it not be
we'll to have an act passed authorizing
investigation there2 Is there no balm
at all in this Gilead.
While there are many good sugges-
tions in the Report, the committee have
failed to discriminate properly where
matters are left to the discretion of the
officer; and peremptorily lay down law
where they are clearly in the wrong,
and the practice Of the whole State is
against them.
The thousand dollars to the Auditor,
as additional compensation, was matter
thought by the County Commissioners
to be discretionary with them within the
limits of law.
The Committee "are of the opinion"
the $29 allowed the Sheriff for posting
over the county, proClamations for the
State and Presidential elections in 1875
was illegal, there being but seventeen
townships in the county, and the law al
lowing but fifty cents for each election in
each township. The charge was made
and allowed, on the basis of each eleC-
ton precinct being township, and we
understand such is the construction gen.
orally given the law throughout the
State. We quote:
2. He (the Sheriff. was paid sundry bills
for copies of subpGnas for witnesses be-
fore the grand jury, and mileage for serv.
ing such subp9nas, amounting in all to
$ll744, which payment was not author.
lied by law. Provision is made by stat.
ute for paying the Sheriff "out of the
county treasury" for Serving" subpe'
mas for witnesses before the grand jury;
and these fees the Sheriff charged and
was paid. 1t may be hardship that
payment of "Copies" and mileage" out
of the county treasury, is not provided
for; but this can only be remedied by
legislation; the Commissioners have no
power in the premises.
Lawyers, it would seem, are not infal-
lible, even in questions of statutory law.
The committee admit the Hardship"
and by consulting the fees Act of 1876,
they would have admitted the law. 1t
wOuld be hardship" to require the
Sheriff to serve subpGnas upon witnesses
all over the county for l24 cents each.
A little more proper deliberation" on
the part of the committee would no
doubt have prevented this mistake.
In volume73 of the laws of Ohio, pages |
l31, 1872 and 1873, is an act passed April |
9Th, 1876, which provides as follows, for |
fees and compensation of Sherifts:
"For serving and returning a subpoena |
for each person named therein to appear
before the Grand Jury, 123 cents, to be
paid by the county on the certificate of
he clerk"
"For the copy of any writ or process
necessary to complete service for each
)ne hundred words, ten cents"
Travelling fees upon all writs, pre-.
'epts and subpGnas, from place of return
% place of service, ten cents per mile"
The allowance to Recorder Wilcox,
or making general index, it is proper to
o say, was allowed to his predecessors.
This precedent" may be bad; but even in
courts of law, precedent" is law and
.hough statutes are to be strictly constru.
3D." precedent prescribes the construC-
ion. Lawyers claim much for "prece-
len" and hinge their case upon it when
'ver possible. 1t may be that custom
8 the law of one description of fools, and
ashton of another" though apparently
elated, they are not; for "prec.
,dent is the legislator of the first,
md novelty of the last" Lawyers sure
y should allow others, outside of the
to honor and observe prece.
lent, somewhat; for precedent" is the
Jupiter Of the legal profession, at whose
hrine all lawyers worship with an east.
,rn devotionl Again they say:
8. We find no authority of law for pay
ng the Probate Judge $4,000 for making
eport to the Secretary of State of births,
leaths, marriages, &C., nor the Auditor
5000 for making out the annual report
# the Commissioners; nor the Recorder
30 for making report to the Secretary of
jtate. Nor do we find such authority
or paying the Probate Judge $3.50 for
aking recognizances of Byron Smith and
William Johnson, and $3.50 for appoint.
ng school examiner, Mr.. Worley.
The committee are clearly mistaken in
he above. The principle is we'll estab.
ished, that where the law requires and
njoins the performance of duty, proper
is allowable. We are con-
dent these reports are paid for gener.
lly, nay universally over the State