Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1890-01-24

record! Every written step from the time
the warrant is born by the official order of
me board until it is signed by the chair
mar and delivered to the party to whom it
Is drawn is a recOrd-and a record sacred
in the eyes of the law.
1t not, then all Mr.. Healy, as chairman
OF the board, would have to do would be to
remain in the county auditors office and
deface warrants as fast as they are drawn,
to prevent his political opponents from re-
ceiving their dues from the county.
Ii 1t was right for him to deface this
warrant it will surely be right for him to
deface it when it is reissued. If it will be
right the second time it will be right the
third. And SO it would go till a thousand
warrants for the bill had been drawn and
would be rs far from receiving his pay as
at the start.
Where will you draw the line?
At what point in this novel procedure
will it become illegal for Mr.. Healy to
thwart the will of the majority, defy the
law and snap his finger at the county's
honor?
Here is a question for the legal phalanx,
who claim that he has not mutilated a
record, to answer.
Let 1t be repeated: If it is no crime for
him to deface the first warrant, it will be
none for him to deface the second or third
or the one hundredth that may be drawn
for the anne bill.
"Ah butt they say: The way to get your
pay is to have the judge issue a mandamus
compelling Healy to sign the warrant.
True, but a county warrant is no more 50.
cred when drawn under mandamus than
when drawn legally under the order of the
board of county cOmmissioners-and Mr..
Healy can deface it then as we'll as be-
fore.
Furthermore, what would the position
of a Judge be, who should release a mar
who had been held for destroying a county
warrant and then issue a mandamus COM
pelllng him to recreate what he had de-
StrOyed.
The mandamus would be a virtual con-
viction on the charge for which the same
judge had acquitted the same man.
The TRIBUNE is now discussing state
ments that have been made by lawyers
for the defense and is prompted to do so
publicly because OF the efforts that are
being made to release this man who las
committed a serious offense against the
confidence OF the people who were deluded
intO elevatlng him to a position of public
trust.
The talk about the warrant book not
being a public record is the merest Dosh.
1t is the most important of all the records;
it is the only book in which the man who
receives his pay from the county signs a
~ 40 IN oL1J " vIlO uOot1u i
OF which can defraud a citizen whose hon
est claim legally allowed in the past may
not be sanctioned by a new and politically
different board. Not a visiting lawyer
whom the TRIBUNE has consulted on this
question, but says that it is a most import
ant record.
r. N. Stevens, the we'll known legislator
who is not only a lawyer, but has been
county auditor of Ransom county a nulm-
Der OF years, SAID last night: "Anyone who
claims that the county warrant book is not
a record must have a very original idea Of
what constitutes a record. 1t is not only a
record but it is a record in the ~strictest and
highest sense Of the law. 1t is the only
book in which the receiver of a warrant
signs a receipt; the warrants are numbered
according to law and when paid are re-
turned to the auditors office and checked
up with the stub. If a mistake is made by
the auditor in a warrant so that one num-
Der will be missing, the warrant
upon which the mistake is
made must be cancelled and it must ac-
company the bill as a part of the record.
The warrant book is a record of vital im-
portance-not only to the county auditors
office, but to the county, as through it you
get your proof of the payment Of billS.'
This is the statement of lawyer and an
experienced auditor and is in harmony
with the sentiments Of all who have
spoken on the subject. Yet, those who are
clustered about Healy to save him, claim
with magnificent assumption, that the
warrant book is not a record.