Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1889-03-07
Belntnttt Chronicle
THURSDAY, MARCH :, 1889.
A STORY OF A CLERK.

I I
Clerk of Richland township. He may be
now, and may always have been, very
exemplary animal; but that circumstance
has not the remoteSt bearing upon the
question at issue. His powerful open
letter, occupying column in his organ,
with the exception of half dozen lines
is as foreign to the question at issue as
is the legend of William Tell and the
apple.
In the month of December last the
Clerk issued an order upon the Treasury
of Richland township for $500. The pre-
tended voucher shows that the order was
issued to pay attorneys of Francis D.
Bailey, George 5. Lentz, and John Mich
ener, who were judges of election at st.
Clairsville in November, 1887. The ques-
tion is, WGs it a la1ctul paymenta
The Constitution of Ohio says: "No
" money shall be dra1cn from any county
"or township treasury ereept By auihOr-
"ity o. Lalo." There can be no dispute
nor misunderstanding about the mean
ing of that provision. 1t is so plain that
any one who is able to read the language,
and who has any conception of the mean
ing of words, should have no difficulty in
understanding it. 1t requires no lawyer
to interpret it. 1t is mandatory.
Two of the defendants were Trustees
of the township; but that Office is dis
tinct from that of Judge of election. If
none of the Trustees of a township (who
may act as judges of electiOn) are pres
ent, the bystanders may choose judges;
but the Office of Trustee can not be filed
in that way. The duties of election Off
GERS begin and end with each election.
The men who hold the Office of Trustee
stand upon equality with the individual
chosen by the bystanders. All are alike.
All are required to qualify in precisely
Jne same manner.
The able Clerk says:
"The $500 paid for attorney fees was
for the defense of the Trustees in their
official capacity as election judges"
Is there any pretense that John Mich
ener was a Trustee of the township
There are two election precincts in the
township. Can there be any justification
for compelling taxpayers of the other
precinct to contribute to the defense of
election officers of this precinct? Does
it follow that, if election officers of that
precinct shall arbitrarily refuse to re-
ceive vote, we of the St Clairsville pre-
cinct must contribute to their defense?
Does it follow that if Mr. Cowen had OBJ
tanned a verdict for round sum the tax
payers of the township would have been
liable for it? Not at all. The judgment
would have been against Bailey, Lentz,
and Niichener; not against Richland
township. None of the able lawyers
whom the Clerk pretends to have con-
suited will deny that proposition. Why,
then, should the township pay lawyers
employed to defend the case? There
can not be shadow of pretenSe that a
township is liable for judgment rem
dered against election officers, nor for
the pay of attorneys employed by them.
1t may be said this view of the law
throws greater responsibilities upon OIL
GERS than they should be required to as
sumo. No man can take any position in
life without assuming some responsible
ity. But why need there be any especial
risk, if election officers are disposed to
be fair? and why should they not take
the responsibility if disposed to 6e arbi-
trary and unfair2 The final oath, which
Judges of election are bound to tender,
but which in the Cowen case they failed
and refused to tender until demanded
and insisted upon, is meant to be con-
elusive. When that is rendered and ta-
ken, judges of election are bound to re-
ceive the vote, unless other testimony is
presented contradicting it. The burden
is then thrown upon the voter. Ifhe has
sworn falsely, the law provides ample and
speedy remedies. Election officers can
not arbitrarily say we know better, as
they did in this case, and then shelter
themselves behind the taxpayers of the
township.
The rejection of Mr.. Governs vote, un-
der the circumstances, was fragrant out
rage upon the ballot, and the conduct of
the election officers arbitrary and lawless.
But it is not that we wish to discuss just
now.
The question is, Where is the l0ao d,t-
thoJjzing the Trustees and Clerk to pay
attorneys for defending officers out Of the
TO1CRship Trea u1yf The Clerk con-
fesses there is none, and in the face of
the plain words of the Constitution "NO
"money snail be d,a10n from any county
or tO,CnShip treasury except 6y author
"ity Of JooO," sets up the miserable de-
fence that certain attorneys, whom he is
careful not to name, advised him that he
should issue the order. Did the Clerk
not know of this provision of the Con-
stitution? Was he unable to read and
understand the meaning of the words we
have quoted? Does he think lawyers are
authorized to set aside or suspend plain
provision of the Constitution, to suit theil
convenience or purposer Is that the
manner of Clerk we have? If it is, his
bondsmen need not be surprised if some