Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-01-08
ENTITLED TO PAY.
Gives the Board Of Equalization Per
Diem.

! Diem.
ST. PAUL, Dec. 3, 1881.
| Hon. VIM. J. Hahn, Attorney General
State of Minnesota, ST. Paul-Dear Sir
Section one Of an act of the Legislature
Special Laws, chapter 2l2) entitled San
act to provide for the equalization of
taxes in the county of Ramsey" approx
ed March 1, 1875, names the assessor as
one of a number Of persons who shall
constitute the county board of equaliza-
ton. Sections 2 and 8 of same act spec
ify the duties of said board, and section
fixes the compensation of its members
as follows: "Each of said persons COM
prising said board of equalization shall
be paid out Of the county treasury the
sum of three dollars per day for every
days actual service aforesaid"
An act Of the legislature Especial Laws
chapter 316) entitled can act to regulate
and establish the salary and fees of GER
tain officers in Ramsey county, Minneso-
ta," approved March, 1878, provides that
"the salary and compensation of the as
SCISSOR of said county and city shall be
four thousand dollars $4,000 per
annum, and no more, and
no other sum shall be paid as clerk hire
or otherwise, for any duty or work per-
formed or done in the discharge Of such
Office
Previous to the enactment last quoted,
the assessor was paid the same compen-
so his services on the county board of
equalization as was allowed by law and
paid to each Of the other members there
of. While the act of rs worked ne
change in the status of the county asses
sor, it has been assumed that by reason
of the limitations alleged to be therein
expressed, he was not entitled to compen-
sation for his services as member of the
county board of equalization. The stat
ute clearly defines the duties of an asses
sor, and nowhere does it make it any part
of the duty or work to be performed or
done by him to serve ON such board.
This being the case, l claim that the
compensation, named in the act first
above quoted, is due me for services on
said board, and l write to ask how you
construe the law ON this point
You will place me under renewed obi
cations if you will let me know your
construction of the law on the point in
question. Yours respectfully,
j. l. BEAUMONT, County Assessor.
p Since closing my letter it comes
to my mind that the law first above
quoted, names the mayor, of St. Paul,
the county auditor and the equity assessor
as members of the county board of equali-
cation, and it occurs to me as somewhat
parallel case, that the governor, the at
torney general and the auditor of state
are named, by the law, as members of the
state board of equalization. do not ap-
prehend that because these state officers,
leach in his respective Office have speci-
fed and fixed salaries, they are thereby
barred from receiving the compensation
for their services, allowed by law, to each
member of the state board of equaliza-
ton. If l am correct in this, I think 1t
strengthens the position have taken in
the matter, as stated in this communion
ton. Yours, &C.,
]. I. BEAUMONT, County Assessor.
Copy
STATE OF MINNESOTA,
ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE,
ST. PAUL, Jan. 4, 1882.
j. l. Beaumont, Esq, County Assessor, RAM
sey County.
DEAR SIR: Your communication rela-
tive to your compensation while doing
duty as member of the County Board of
Equalization has necessarily remained I'M
answered, pending the disposition of the
matters pertaining to the railroad bonds
and claims, which has occupied almost
my entire time of late find that chapter
212, Special Laws, 1876, which you refer
to as fixing the duties and compensation,
as well as the persons composing the
Board of Equalization, was passed upon
and construed in connection with the stat
ute fixing the salary of the county audi
tor, who is by this statute of 1876 made a
member, as well as the assessor of said
board, by my late predecessor Judge
Start. He said: 'sBy sec. 2, chap. 207,
Special Laws 1875, the salary of the audi
tor is fixed at 81 900 per year, and by sec.
l, chap. 30, other or greater compensa-
ton could not be allowed as additional
compensation, or for deputies, clerk hire,
or otherwise. do not think this act
should be construed as depriving the au-
d1tor of the compensation of 50 per day
as member of the Board Of Equaliza-
ton of Ramsey county, as provided for
by sec. 4, chap. 212, Special Laws 1876.
Section one of the latter act designates
who shall constitute the board.
Sections 2 and defines their duties
and powers. The members of the board
are to meet on the first day Of September
in each year unless it should be Sunday,
in which case they are meet on the sec
ond day of the monthly and complete
their labors on or before the 2Sth day of
the same month. Sec. 4 provides that
each member of the board-the auditor
is member shall be paid the sum of
So per day for every days actual service
aforesaid' That is for the services men
toned in Sec. and 8. 1t will be observed
that all the duties of the board must be
completed in % days Excluding Sundays
and this would be the limit, for which
the auditor could receive So per day for
services as member of the board The
duties imposed on the auditor by Sec 5
of the act as made part Of his official
duties as auditor, and no compensation
having been given by the law imposing
the new duties, he is not entitled to any
in addition to the salary fixed by law.
If the views that 1 have taken of these
statutes are correct, it follows: that the
auditor was entitled to So per day for SER
vices as member of the board of equali-~
zation, not exceeding twenty eight days
in each year; that he is not entitled to
eytra camnensatiOn az clerk of tho hoard