The Eaton Democrat. (Eaton, Ohio) 1875-1903, 1879-12-18


of3he additions 10 the tax du-
p~licatc, wsis, We are satisfied, a pay
ment without sanction of law the
Auditor receiving also the legal all
lowance on said additions.
3rd. lii the matter of allowances Of
costs TO Mayors MarshaIs Justices and
Constables, the Commissioners pro-
fess to have experienced considerable
difficulty. This we DO not think need
be the case il the provisions of tho
statutes regulating the payment of
costs in certain criminal cases (Ohio
vol. rs, page 5oD is strictly OBJ
served. 1t will be seen that except
in cases OF felony. where the defend
ant is convicted, the payment ofall
costs, except witness fees, is prohib-
tied. The. phrase swhcre the defend
ant is convicted" We understand to
mean on trial in the Court of Com
MOI Pleas, or ORR plea eof guilty to
an Indictment found in that Court.
Then on Al ccrtificate 10 that effect
from the Clerk, the Commissioners
are authorized 10 allow the Mayors
Justices or Constable's costs, made
in the preliminary proceedings. But
while the payment ofcosTs in all 9TH
or cases as cosTs is prohibited by law,
these officers are not left entirely un-
provided for. On the contrary the
Commissioners are authorized at any
regular session to make an allowance
to any, of said officers IN LIEU OF
FEES, in cases Of felonies where the
State fails to convict, and IN cases of
misdemeanors, upon conviction,
where the defendant proves insolyenty
but the aggregate amount of such al
llowance 10 any officer in any year
shaliinot exceed the fees legally taxed
by him in such cases, nor shall tho
aggregate amount of such allowances
to any officer, in any one year, exceed
one hundred dollars Now we deem
1.-The proper course for the Commits
sioners to pursue would be thiss To
have regular periods at which all cost
bills shall be considered and all al
lowances made, These might be once
twice or four times a year, which
should be allowances to these officers
in lieu of costs, and not the allowance
of the cost bills handed in by them.
These latter should only be taken in
to consideration for the purpose OF
ascertaining the legal amount of fees
taxed, sothat the allowance should in
no case exceed them, and if this al
lowance is made oftener than once .
year, reference should be had to each
preceding allowance, SO that the ag-
gregate might be Kept within the
bounds prescribed bylaw. We would
suggest the following plan: That
once in each quarter the Commissions
ers examine all cost bills for the pre-
ccding three months and that the
} tamount allowed each officer in lieu of
, fees legally taxed, if it be The first
quarter, it shall not exceed twenty
five dollars if the second, it. shall
} not exceed twenty-five dollars, unless
the cost bills contain legal fees
amounting to more than that sum and
, the amount allowed at the preceding
quarter was less, when it may be in
decreased 10 the amount of the legal
charges, provided the latter, together
with the allowance made the first
quarter does not exceed fifty dollars.
: That the sarne plan be followed with
D the third and fourth quarters, keeping
the aggregate allowances within sew.
) enty five dollars and one hundred dol
) lars respectively. We would further
= suggest that in case legal fees to q
greater amount than Twenty-Five dol.
) lars is taxed to any such officer in any
quarter, except the last of the year,
5 and the full amount has been allow
Q 3 ed him for the preceding quarters,
then the cost bills containing such
: surplus may belaid over to the sue.
5 ccediug quarter and may be tn'' en- in.
to consideration in the allowance
: made for that or any future quarter o.
5 the same year, being always careful
that the aggregate amounts allowed
during thu year does not exceed on,
. hundred dollars. We would alst
suggest that the Commissioners wher
they make any such allowance, do 81
by resolution, that the same be enter
o ed upon the minutes, showing tina
4 such an officer was allowed the sun
" Of dollars. in lieu of cost bill
"a filed during the preceding quarter
4 If any cost bills are carried over j
IS would probably be well to make
70 minute of them also and that the,
. would properly come up the mex
quarter.
ri 4th. We find that the Auditor ha
Is been paid out of the County Fund tn,
Is sum of $132.2 20 for making tho Dupli
a. cate for the collection fthe Dog Tax
. This payment we think of doubtful
n validity, although made on the opin
ion of the State Auditor, and on
70 Auditor considered il SO questionable
20 that he only charged for the work a
. half the usual rates. But the act it
~ self, while it requires certain dutie
= to be performed by the Auditor, doe
IS not provide for any compensation 70
IS labor (see Ohio Laws, vol. "a, pag
. 1T, EFT sEo.) In the absence of an,
% decision oil the question, we wonl,
y suppose that the command to do Ger
* tain work would imply the provision
: to pay for it what it is REASONABLE,
10 WOFtl WUcu uOuc, anu tulS ~ u1
d%oubtedly the rule between privat
parties, but we find the Suprem
'Court holding differently where tn
services are performed in pursuanc
"a to q statute which makes no provis
ii ions for paying for them. In the cas-
2 of Anderson VS.. the Board of Com
2 missioners of jefferson County, O.
% 0. S. Reports, page 49, the Cour
says: "Where a special service forth
benefit of the public is required b
law and no provision for its paymei
is made, it must be regarded as gratu
itous and no claim for compensatiot
= can be enforced. While, i'm all defer
ence to the Supreme Court, this doe
not look TO us altogether like jnstiet
it appears to be the law as laid dow
by the Supreme Court. But Will
G we do not think the Auditor shouli
n do this work without compensation
: we do think his pay should come, nc
out of the County Fund, but out Q
the Fund derived from the tax itsell
This is a tax on a specific species Q