Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-05-03

OF ms Office as distinguished IrOm the ONCE
of the principal assessor. Either an as
sistant assessor in this county is county
officer, or ne is not. That he is an officer,
and that his acts are official is beyond
question, the general law empowering
him, after giving bond and taking the re-
quired oath, 'to perform all the duties en-
Joined upon, vested in, or imposed
upon assessors" General laws of 1873,
| chapter 1, sections
If he is an officer he is certainly not af-
fected by the special law of 1873 above
quoted, section Is of that law reading as
follows: "Any officer of said city of
Saint Paul or of said county of Ramsey,
not referred to in this act, shall not be in
anywise affected by this act or any provis-
ions thereof"
The act of 1873 did not change, nor alter
IN any respect the services to be rendered
or the duties to be performed by the prin-
cipal assessor, they remained the same as
they were in 1875, and section one of the
1878 act starts out with the explicit declara-
ton that the salary hereinafter fxed and
established, in the case of such officers as
are manned in the act" was for ''dU SER
rices NOW or hereafter by laaO prescribed or
required to be performed by them"
1 see clearly that any personal assistants
or clerks which the principal assessor may
find it necessary to employ to assist him in
the clerical work of his Office, which, as a
matter of fact, he invariably finds it nee
essary to do, and always at his own private
expense, must look to him for their
compensation. They, the personal assis-
tants and clerks referred to, are not
assistant assessors, their acts are not Off
cial, their duties are wholly clerical, they
are in no sense county officers, and it is
only reasonable to presume that to make
provision for this, as large and annually
increasing expense of the Office, the salary
of the principal assessor was increased by
the law of 1878. A strong argument might
be made to show the unreasonableness of,
and the injustice marked by the erroneous
construction which has obtained as TO the
law of 1873. 1t would seem contrary to all
reason and justice to suppose, that such an
intelligent body of men, as the Legislature
of this state, should have had the intention
to reduce the whole appropriation for
defraying the expense of making the
assessment of the taxable property of this
county from five thousand $4,000 dollars,
as provided for in 1875, when the popula-
ton of this city was only thirty three
(33,000) to four thousand $4,000 dollars in
1878, when the population was very much
larger and rapidly increasing, and when
the labor, expense and responsibility of
making the assessment, as we'll as the
cost of living, were correspondingly
larger and rapidly increasing. That such
was the intention of the legislature in 1878
is wholly improbable and unlikely. Hav-
ing, trust, made it clear to your minds
that the accompanying claims are entirely
legal, will mention that by misconstruc-
ton of the law of 1878, above quoted, the
per diem of the auditor and assessor of this
county for services as members of the
county board of equalization, was withheld
from them for the years 1878, '79, 80 and
'81, mall, four years. In the fall Of 1881,
claimed that the law of 1878 had worked
no change whatever in the status of the
assessor, and that he was then, as former
ly, entitled the per diem provided by law
for his services as member of that board,
and the attorney general of the state,
upon my applying to him for his opinion,
confirming my construction of the law,
both as to the assessor and auditor, the
amounts due to these officers from the
county for services on the board for the
four years above named, were paid to
them early in the year 1882. 1 bring
this matter of fact to your notice, to show
to your honorable board that the law of 1878,
herein referred to, is liable to misconstruc-
ton, and that the case of the assistant as
SCISSORS of this county, as recited above, is
not solitary instance in which miscon-
struction has occurred. 1 am confident
that candid consideration of these claims,
and the laws herein referred to, by your
honorable board, will result in confrma-
ton of any conclusions in regard to them,
in which event I anticipate that the claims
will be cheerfully allowed.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Your obedient servant,
J. l. BEAUMONT.
st. Paul, May 1, 1888.
Names of claimants and amounts claim
ed, represented by Joseph I. Beaumont, as
signee in the premises.