Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1881-02-04
AUDITOR CASES FEES.
s,ateme mt from Commissioner stafror,

As an officer OF Wood county and be-
lieving il TO be my duty to the taxpayers
of the county, make the following state
ment:
That the Auditor has charged and re-
cei we'd pay (accordlng to his own state
men) for the year ending Nov. LIST, 1880,
for work done under improved road and
ditch laws Mt the rate of ten cents per hun
dred words, under an act passed April 24'
1877, o. l.. vol. "A, p. 124. The improved
road law now in force makes the compensa-
tion eight cents per hundred words, r. 8.
1,075, while under the ditch law the rate
is six cents per hundred words, R. S. 4,506.
He does this under the plea that an officers
fees cannot be changed, during the term for
which he may have been elected, or at least
that his is not. He has TO back HIM in this
opinion the Auditor of State, the Attorney
General, the Prosecuting Attorney of the
county, and two Commissioners. 1 dis
sent from this view, and claim that he is
only entitled to the rates prescribed by
law, for the work done under the law
and have to back me the opinion OF good
attorneys, decisions of the Supreme Court
in similar cases, viz: IL o. S.page 6l7 and
o. S. page 23S1the opinion OF good men
in the county, and that common'sense view
that recognizes all men as equal under the
law, as well a. that sense of justice that
requires nll men working under the law
to take rates prescribed by that law, and
not compel nine men doing work under n
law to take the rates prescribed therein and
pay the tenth man under an old law, that
Is repealed, and has in fact no existance
as law, which claim is fact in this
| case.
The county Surveyor receives 81 pei
day less, and the printers fifty per cent. less
under the new law than they did un-
der the old law repealed. Taking as d
basis the amount OF work done under i'm.
proved road and ditch laws to be So 400
(Which is low. one-third road and two
thirds ditch, and the difference would b'
$500, in favor 0. the county, between th'
existing rates and the rates charged in III,
last year, which claim belongs to the tax
payers. But admitting for the sake of mr.
gunent that am wrong and the Audito
right, and that he is entitled to charge un
der the law Of II, o. l.. Vol. "A, p. 124
then sect ion l OF said act provides that h,
| .lnlI l,,y 81 1, faaa m aut In
either as Clerk of the Board Of Comm is
sioners, Board of Equalization, or AN
other board of which lie may be Clerk o
for any other service done by him. No,
il this law is good for him to charge unde
il should he good enough for him to abid
by clear through. Yet after charging te
cents per hundred words under that law
we find in his last settlement these items
Accounts, settlements and dividends
OH improved roads and ditches.,. $3.50 0
% days member BcardEqua!izalion 66 0
The board was only in session seven day
In reference to the $3.50 item, l can fin
no such item charged in the adjoining com
ties but find similar work done, Neilhe
can find any warrant Of law that wi
Justify the charge in that form, while it
right that he should have pay for til
work done, IT must be made in detail an
not in bulk, X. S. 1,O77. The difftren.
would be Ms near as i can tell about 500
/ have from the Auditors of three OF III
adjoining counties the verbal statemei
i. that they are charging under the law
TT Il n cents per hundred words, while Il
y Auditor OF Henry county, elected the san
time as our Auditor, ia charging und'
the law now in force, six cents per hundre
: words for ditch work-making the mob
G and manly remark, "that where there W,
any donbt, he gave itin favor Of the county
/ make this statement after careful il
4 vesligation, and believe II to DO true.
: is no pleasure TO make II II 10 not doi
r through spite or revenge, but from sen
u Of duly to those who placed me in M
!, present position. IL ia the only remed
y left me, having no support from the boal
+ 10 prosecute IN your behalf. rs the recor
,, will show. My hands are tied as an of
& Ger but as n taxpayer | am at liberty
o net with you, and so confident am that
am right that nm willing to do one sol
u years work for the county for the difie
. enee between what is charged and what Il
Supreme Court will say should be charge
'. for ihe year above mentioned.
= uf .r N. w. STAFFORD.
y January ~, 1881