Devils Lake inter-ocean. (Devils Lake, Ramsey Co., Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1905, 1886-09-04

oAAooA l
Answcr.-We are not familiar with the
bonding business in the counties men,
except in the Cavanagh case.
Grand Forks, Towner and Benson coun-
ties may have issued bonds by authority
of the legislature, and the acts author
izing the issuance of such bonds may
have provided for commissions for the
treasurers of those counties. The an
swer to the next question will show that
there was no provision in any act of the
legislature pertaining to Ramsey county
which gave Mr.. Maher $780, so as COM
mission on bonds.
S. Did tho $4,000 funding bill for
Ramsey county provide that the treas
urer should be entitled to n per cent
for his commission under the bill, and if
so has he been allowed this one per cent?
Answer-The $4,000 funding bill con-
tanned the following provision:
Provided that the county treasurer shall receive no
more than one per cent for his services in carrying out
the provisions Of this act.
The county treasurer did not nego-
tate these bonds, but the board of COM
missioners negotiated them, and the
money was turned over to the treasurer.
1t is the opinion of one or two attorneys
in this city that the treasurer vas emit
tied to the one per cent, but the bonds
being negotiated by the board and not
by the treasurer, as contemplated in the
bill, it would be IN injustice to the tax
payers to pay the commission q second
time. The funding bill provided that
the treasurer should not receive more
than one per cent. 1t thus left it discre-
tionary with the board how much, if
anything, he was to receive. All the
treasurer had to do was to receive the
money and put it in the bank -; he had
nothing to do with negotiating the bonds.
1t is the opinion of the INTER-OcEAN
that the one per cent belonged to Mr..
Maher had he negotiated the bonds !;
otherwise he would receive $145 without
rendering any service therefor, and men
are supposed to work for their money
these days. The commission having
been once paid the county should not
pay it a second time.
6. Was the item of 1899. so an illegal
charge by the treasurer according to
your view, or did it include tho one pei
cent on the $500 bill?
AmSvcr.-It was an illegal charge. &C
cording to the view of the territorial
supreme court. 1t included one pei
cent on the $l5, 900 bonds, which one pei
cent was once paid bv the county.
7. What was the entire cost to tho
county in the issuing of our bonds fol
go, 200, and what was the net amount
realized to the county from their sale.
Answcr.-The county received $19,40(
for the $4,000 bonds-$14,S50 on thu
$15 900 general funding bonds, and $455(
on the $4,000 road and bridge bonds.
S. Has the treasurer in all other mat
ters been a faithful and efficient officer
and ifnot, why has no charge been mad,
heretofore, and why was not this matter
NlSCuSSCu luSG JANUARY "IlCI lIlC GECtlS
urer submitted his report?
Answer.-We are willing to submit TIN
question of "faithfulness and efficiency
to the people of Ramsey county. The.
are the judges in this case. In regart
to charges being made heretofore, thu
proceedings of the board Of commission
ers (the present board) shows that a
} the meeting Of the new board, when MI
) Maher submitted his report, there wa
but one member of the old board pres
ent, and out of courtesy to the old board
who were familiar with the treasurer
; affairs, the report went owe until a ma
jority of the old board should be pres
ent. This majority never materialized
and at Il later meeting lin March, tn,
report was taken up. 1t was shown tina
the old board had previously allowe'
> the one per cent commission, and tn
new board directed MI. Maherto return
to the county the one per cent he ha'
charged, the amount having been pai
: in negotiating the bonds. The ne,
. board held that to pay the commissio,
= twice would be wrong. Maher failed t
return the money, according to the il
structions Of the board, and when h
made his report in July last he had ais
charged up four per cent on the roa
and bride bonds, making $S5S59.@ CON
missions he claimed on "money whic
came into the treasury without his il
strumentality." The board refused
accept the report, and Mr.. Maher I.
fused to refund the money. The boar
then directed that suit be brougf
against Mr.. Maher and his bondsmen I
recover the amount, and the county a
torney was engaged in preparing tn
papers, under section IS, chapter 2
/ when MI. Maher ~disgorged, thus avoi'
ie ing the expense and notorietv of a su
which the supreme court had alread
r. 70 decided against him.
No, NJ NfrrD <Io ovo,orA o,~., Boo,