The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-06-09
BOARD OF COUNTY PRISONERS.
Prosecutor Hastie's Opinion OF What
l. Dne EN-Sher.iff Mooler.y.

The celebrated disagreement between
the King county commissioners and ex-
Sheriff j. H. WOolery over the board Of
prisoners for the months OF Novem Der
and Decent her. 1885,. which has been in an
unsettled state FOR d long time. will PROB
aoiy be settled permanently within a few
days. Pros cutinE Attorney HASTE ZEN
dered one opinion IN which he stated that
from the data before him he was unao Die
20 sac any reason for disturbing the de-
cssiOn OF the board. More data were fur
utshed and after considerable study Mr.
HASTE dictated an opinion LAST evening
70 the county commissioners, in which
he said:
II am OF the opinion that no greater
amount than 60 cents per day could legal
~ be allowed for the board OF each pris-
oner confined IN the county Jail after June
L, iS93. ON that date the law relating to
this subject went into effect. 1t IS plain
and reads as follows: That IL shall be
unlawful for the board of county com
missiOners In any county in this state 70
allow more than So cents per day for rhe
boarding Of each prisoner confined IN the
county Jail OF thar respective counties.
II appears that in face Of this statute
the board allowed 81 per day There was
cert aiuly IN this case an Illegal charge
and an overpayment. The county. like
an individual. is in this pos!tion--if It by
mistake pays a greater amount than the
stipulated or fixed price to one OF its Of
ficers or employees, It should deduct the
overpayment from the next bill presented
after the mistake is discovered. From the
proof presented II appears that after June
l.. 1898, there was paid TO the sheriff the
amount OF $4S0.S0 for the hoard of pris-
oners confined in the county Jail in cx
cess OF 81 cents per day. II also appears
that 1894, the balance claimed on these
oil ri 20
! therefore advise the board of county
commissioners TO reconsider the action
heretofore taken I'm this matter. and only
deduct $50 50 from any bill which has
been presented by the ex-sherif and Eor
paid. and that the balance be allowed and
a warrant drawn therefor and delivered
to j. H. Woolery in full payment and set
Element OF this matter. This controversy
has grown out Of the irregularities &C
curing previous TO the new administra-
ton entering upon the duties Of their Of
fee. and has caused this office a great
loss OF time hard work and much annoy
ance.
"As to the last question submitted. 1
am of the opinion that il makes no diff
ference who the person or persons were
who passed. audited or allowed this I'M
lawful charge. II these bills claimed TO
he due against the state were for the
board OF prisoners after conviction the
county should have paid no part OF II. If
the bills were Il proper charge against
the county. no amount I'm excess OF 80
cents per day could be lawfully allowed
II is clear that the hoard did allow 81 per
day, and It should now he corrected by
the present board. as It is still within
their power, and clearly within their duty
10 DO so.
Il trust that We may soon be through
with old business and matters relating
TO past administra tons, and then give
all q our time 20 tia business arising
during our term OF office"