Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-01-10
HE WON'T PAY.
County Treasurer Rice Declines to Honor
the Warrants Of the County Auditor.

| County Treasurer Rice Declines to Honor
the Warrants of the County Auditor.
An additional wedge was forced into the
breach between County Treasurer Rice and
the Fort Smelling bridge commissioners yes
terday afternoon, and in all probability the
difficulty between these honorable gentle.
men will be adjusted by the county.
It will be remembered that the trouble
arose in the first instance from the refusal OF
Mr.. Rice to pay a bill of $50 for extra ser
vices rendered by the county auditor by
making out duplicate bills for all claims ap-
proved by the commission. At subse-
quent meeting of the commission the sub
ject was taken up for consideration, the re-
suit being that the claim of the auditor was
declared correct, and resolution was passed
holding the treasurer accountable for any
trouble that might arise from
his refusal to recognize warrants
drawn by the auditor on matters appertain-
ing to the bridge. At the last meeting of the
commission, held on Monday, the final esti-
mate of II. E. Horton & Co., amounting to
So, 1890, was submitted and approved, the
same being for work done on the super
structure of the bridge.
The approved claim was taken to the audi
tor, yesterday afternoon, by Mr.. Horton,
who received warrant on the county treas
urer for the amount as above stated. The
warrant was rendered to the county treasurer,
who refused to pay the money on the
grounds that he was not authorized to dis
burse funds without having voucher or
claim showing to which fund the money was
applicable.
What steps will next be taken in this in
teresting proceeding remains to be seen.
GLOBE reporter called on MIR. Rice, and
in response to query, that gentleman
stated that he had the most prudential rea-
sons for not having honored the warrant.
The law required that he should not disburse
money without knowing exactly upon what
grounds the claim was predicated, and as the
warrant had not been accompanied by bill
he had no authority to pay the money.
The reporter then called upon Auditor
Davis, who was surprised to hear that the
warrant had not been honored. When asked
why the warrant had not been accompanied
by bill, he replied that he was directed by
law to file the bill as part of the records,
and that he was uRder no obligations to fur
n1sh bills in duplicate to the county treas
urer. To substantiate his statement, the re-
porter's attention was called to section LIST,
chapter 100, of the special laws of 1873,
which contains the following clause:
All contracts made by said commissioners
under said act for the construction of said
bridge shall be filed in the county auditor 8
Office, of said county. All claims arising from
any of said contracts, or for services rendered
in and about the construction of said bridge,
or Incidental expenses, shall be first allowed
and certified to by majority of said board I'M
der said acts, after which the county auditor
shall examine said claims and accounts and if
found correct and in accordance with the pre-
visions of this act and such contracts on file in
his office he should then issue warrant upon
the county treasurer authorizing the payment
of the claim SO allowed and the amount paid
shall be charged to the Fort Smelling bridge
fund.