Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-07-17
MORE WOOL PULLING.
The District Attorney and the Con-
troller in a Legal Scrap.
BURLEIGH WANTS HIS FULL PAY
But Mr.. Grier Says He Is Now Entitled to
Only $4,000 Year.
SIMPLY GOING ON THE PRESENT LAW

District Attorney Clarence Burleigh and
County Controller Grier are In another
fight. The District Attorney demands his
salary under the act of 1891 and the Con-
troller says he will only pay him under the
act of 1871. Mr.. Burleigh says he is not
fighting for the $1,000, but the Controller
says he has written evidence that the in
crease in salary is the only cause of the
trouble.
Yesterday Mr.. Burleigh went before
Judge Ewing and presented a petition for
writ of alternative mandamus on County
Controller Grier. In his petition he states
that since his election as District Attorney
he has collected and turned into the County
Treasury, according to law, fees of Office
amounting to So, 337. This should be cred
tied to his Office for the purpose of paying
the salaries Of himself and his clerks and
deputy. The total amount of these
salaries for the year to date would
be IS, 200. leaving a balance of q, 1877
in the hands of the Treasurer. The Con-
troller, however, it is stated, refuses to issue
warrant for the salary of the petitioner for
the months of May and June. He also re-
fuses to credit as fees of the District Attor-
ney's Office the proceeds of forfeited recog-
nizances, and will only credit it with two
thirds OF the other fees earned.
Not Enough to Run the Onice.
This amount, it is stated, is utterly insuf-
fcient to meet the expenses of the Office,
and can only result in rendering it pro-
fessional and financial impossibility to
transact the responsible and important busi-
ness of the criminal courts of the county.
The Controller, he asserts, is derelict in
his duty in acting in the manner he has.
In conclusion he asked for a mandamus to
compel the Controller to issue him war
rant for his salary for the months of May
and June at the rate of $1,000 per year to
which he believes he is entitled, and to
credit his Office with the proceeds of all
forfeited recognIzances as fees, and to credit
it with the full amount of fees collected
instead of but two-thirds. The Court fixed
Wednesday tor a hearing.
The proceedings are the result of differ
ences that have been brewing for some time
between the Controller and the District At
torney's Office, in which the question of how
much salary the District Attorney is en-
titled to plays not the least part.
His Salary Depends on tho Fees.
Under the law the District Attorney is
credited with so much for every case he
tries. This is paid into the county treas
ury, and before he or his clerks or deputy
get any salary the fees must equal them. IF
there is deficiency the District Attorney
gets no salary. If there is a surplus the
balance goes to the county. In 1881 the
fees of the Office having become inadequate
to pay the expenses, the Legislature passed
an act crediting to the District Attorneys
off ha de- froy oil 81
recognizances This was to enable him to
meet expenses.
Recently, however, Controller Grier has
taken the position that the District Attor-
ney's office should only be credited with
two-thirds of the fees earned. The other
third, he holds, must go to pay the expenses
of Assistant District Attorney Haymaker
and his clerks, something which had never
been done before. To further shorten the
credit account of District Attorney Bur-
leigh he contends that under the rulings by
the Supreme Court in the case of Bell VS..
Allegheny county, the District Attorney
shall not be allowed as fees the proceeds |
from forfeited recognizances. As result |
the fees will not begin to pay the necessary
expenses of the Office.
Says He Isn't After the Money.
District Attorney Burleigh, in speaking |
question of my receiving $4,000 or 81, 900 |
salary should say nothing, but by the Con-
troller's peculiar construction of the law
and his peculiar method of bookkeeping, I |
am not only allowed but 1000, but more
than go per cent of the fees of my Office are
taken away from me and I am not per-
rnitted toget that much. am put in the
position OF either having to discharge. my
clerks and do all the work myself, an utter
impossibility, or keep my clerks and work
for nothing myself Under the Con-
trollers ruling I cannot collect suffi-
cient fees to run my office. The entire
bench have expressed regret that I am not
allowed more clerks than I now have. The
judges sitting in the Criminal Court know
the amount of work done and appreciate it
I am satisfied that the bench, the bar and
the public do not wish the present state of
affairs to exist and that they do not want
the present efficiency of the Criminal Court
destroyed. 1 am not grabbing after big
salary, but do not think the people of
Allegheny county want me to give my
services for three years gratuItously."
Bucking Against the Supreme Court.
Controller Grier said last night that he
was acting under the decision Of the Su-