Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-01-15
IN OFFICIAL CONTROVERSY,

An official controversy of some interest is
going on here, the parties to it being the
auditor of Ramsey county, S. Lee Davis, and
the treasurer, Henry NJ. Rice 1t has grown
out of the construction of the Fort Smelling
bridge, aud the payments by the county ON
the contract. Several days ago the Fort
Smelling bridge commission, q body created
by act of the legislature, allowed the claim of
FL. E. Horton Il Co., contractors, for some
thing over twenty one thousand dollars, aud
ordered the auditor to issue his warrant up
on the treasurer for the payment of the
same. This was done, but the treasurer re-.
fused payment on the ground that no bill or
voucher for the work done accompanied the
warrant.
The case IS one that not only concerns the
two officials named, but every person having
dealings with the county. The GLOBE will
not cast any reflections upon the motives of
either Treasurer Rice or Auditor Davis, for
it believes that both desire to serve the peo-
pie faithfully and honestly. Yet it is con-
strained to say that Mr.. Rice appears to have
gone step too far, perhaps through too
great solicitude for the safety of the public
funds. He seems to have forgotten that the
auditor as well as himself, is responsible
officer, and that perhaps he is well informed
az to what the law requires of him. The
law prescribes the manner in which claims
against the county shall be paid. If ma
jority of the board of county com missioners,
or any other tribunal authorized By lac,
shall approve bill, and call upon the audi
tor to issue his warrant for the amount, it is
his bounden duty to comply with
the demand, and in order to pro-
teat himself he must retain in his Gus
tody the bill or voucher accompanying the
order. If he should surrender it he would
leave himself without sufficient protection
for either himself or his bondsmen. The
treasurer simply has the duty to perform of
paying the moneys upon the auditors war
rants. He retains those warrants as vouch-
ers for the funds paid out, and if any pay
ments have been vrongfully made on the
warrants issued, the auditor can be held re-
sponsible. 1t is no part of the duty of the
treasurer to pass upon the legality or illegal
ty Of warrants issued upon him for payment.
His is merely an administrative Office, and he
has no right, legal or moral, to refuse pay
ment of any bill presented in the ordinary
course of business. The treasurer Is respon-
slble for the custody of the funds placed III
his charge. II he discusses then in accord
ance with law-upon warrants duly issued
by the auditor on order of the board of
| county commissioners or any other tribunal
authorized by law-he has discharged his full
duty, and neither he nor his bondsmen can
| be held liable for such disbursements.
We are decidedly of opinion that Mr..
Rice has exaggerated the Importance Of his
duties in refusing to pay t;a Claim of the
| bridge contractors that has been properl!
presented to him. AS the matter will proba
| bly, be brought 10 The notice of the courts
to- day by means of q peremptory writ OF
mandamus, we presume the dispute will b.
settled without much more ado.