The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1889-06-13

The publication of the pleadings as
method of laying the facts before your read
ers is not Objectionable, except as occupy.
ing too much of your space. By this
route your readers have doubtless arrived
at the following conclusions of fact:
LIST. That the claim in question was ap-
proved by former Board Of County Com
missioners, as against the fund for ordi,
nary County purposes for 1898.
End. That it was for building bridge,
as stated on its face.
3rd. That the order drawn in payment
Of this claim, designated the nature of the
claim to be ''rock work on road" and
payable out Of special levy for perma-
nent improvement of roads,
Now, there is nothing palmer to my
mind than the purpose of the State Legis.
lature that "the County Treasurer shall
keep each fund raised by taxation sepa-
rate,n and, inorder that he may determine
from what fund to pay claim, the law
directs that the County Commissioners
shall designate on the face of each order
the nature of the claim, il, payment Of auhieh
It is dra,Vn.
The above is the rule; let us measure
this case by it and see how it fits, remem.
horing, meanwhile, that there is a fund
already provided for building bridges.
The. claim says "building bridge" the
order says "rock work on roads," and
payable out of special levy for permanent
Improvement of roads,"
Now, when your readers have read the
Road Law for Anderson County, which
provides that in the annual expenditure of
this special fund it shall be applied to
fixing the worst places in the public
roads, macadamizirg and making rock
culverts where necessary across said
roads," How could they resist the fur.
ther conclusion ?
4th. That this incorrect designation of
the nature of the claim on the face of the
order was employed for the purpose of
reaching the special fund in question.
With the knowledge of these facts be-
fore him, what should a County Treasurer
have done? 1t is insisted upon the plain
tif's part that the Treasurer can not go
behind the order to enquire whether the
transaction in the County Commissioners
Office be regular or not, but that he must
pay even if he knows that it is not regular.
Here is case in which the real nature of
the claim was not designated on the face
of the order, but it bore the designation ofa
claim which had no eristence auhaterer.
Now, if the Treasurer must pay sush an
order as that, what about any other orders
Board of Commissioners might draw on
him which had no foundation in accounts
fled, sworn to and approved for work
done? In other words, how should q
County Treasurer treat bogus orders, or
rather orders on bogus accounts, or &C.
count. that have no existence, knowing
them to be such? All he can do is to pay
them. 1t is easy to see to what fatal ground
this theory leads if logically followed. l
hold to o different theory, and, but for
taking advantage of editorial courtesy, I
should be pleased here to enlarge somewhat
upon what is contemplated by the State
Legislature in the creation Of connection
between these two offces-what each owes
to the other, and what acts of the one are
Of an administrative or judicial oharac-
ter, and what are only executive, that is to
say ministerial" But think it will be
sufficient to state that on the subject of
drawing orders on the County Treasurer
in payment of claims approved, the Legis-
lature has spoken with absolute clearness.
It prescribes the manner of drawing orders
with precision and On emphasis which
leaves no room for doubt of its purpose to
grant to the County Commissioners in that
particular no discretionary p0'uer lvhatercr; !;
and I believe that nothing which the COM
missioner, might do contrary to such plain
legal requirement, could be binding on q
County Treasurer, nor do I believe that
such action would be any protection to
him. And insist that there is absolutely
no foundation for the theory that the is