The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-12-08

1t has been a foregone conclusion for
some time that the terrific and reck-
less pace at which the county select
men were going was likely to receive
a sudden and violent check. The few
irregularities-that is few in compari-
son with the whole number, although
volUminous and glazing when meas
ured by any other standard-which
The Herald has from time to time
pointed out in the business methods Of
the selectmen proved sufficient to set
the grand jury to investigating these
three individuals who posed as reform
ers. economists and the embodiment Of
ali that is just, honorable and hon
est and above all as conservors of the
public veal The results of the inves-
tigation 50 far as disclosed up to the
present are such as to shatter if not
altogether dispel any longer fond belief
in the minds of those disposed to be
most charitable that the mileage MAX
ers approached IN any degree the
standard they had set up to measure
themselves by. The accusations made
by The Herald have been in good
measure sustained by the prcceedlnsS
N5SSS1n took place in the Third district
GO Yesterday and before the inVeSti-
gatfon is completed every charge made
bv The Herald will beyond doubt be
fully sustained and probably new mat
tiers viii be brought out when nave
SO far not been exposed TO pupIc gaze.
AS STATED in The Herald of Friday,
the grand Jury. DESTROYS of obtaining
some light on the legal statutes gov
erning the county court, came into
court and propounded certain questions
to the Judge. Argument on these
questions was set for yesterday morn
ing, after which they were answered
by the court. The answers go to show
that the three Selectmen have been
Illegally drawing mileage since their
induction into office, at the rate of
about $40 month each, making to-
tai for the eleven months of about
$3.50 each. or something like $3.50,
which these three gentlemen have
mulcted the county out Of during that
short period on the one item of mile
age alone
1t also appears that County Clerk
Station has been charging higher fees
for the recording Of certain deeds than
strict construction of the statutes
allows. This, however, is a mere baga-
teIle compared to the milea ge-makers'
graft and was probably done in an
depreciation Of the statute and after
obtaining legal opinion on the point
County Clerks Fees.
The first matter presented by the
grand jury to the court for ilIumina-
ton was the question of the clerks
fees, which was put forward in the
following terms:
To the Honorable, the Judge of the Dis
Trict Court Third Judicial District of
In a case now pending before the grand
jury, it appears that certain parcels of
land were sold for non-payment of taxes
and the time for redemption having ex-
piIe1, the county clerk of Salt Lake
cotAty was required to make and deliver
DEED to the assignee of the purchaser
perSuant to the provision of section %
OF an act OF the legislative assembly
approved Aaro1 Sth, 1894, statutes 1894
page, 127.
The clerk refused to deliver such deed
exc9pt upon the payment to him of $35
bsflg 81 for issuing the same and 81 80
f0recording: Complaint is made to the
gfstAd jury that this last sum of $3.50 is
NOT allowed by law and is an extortionate
charge. Ii is claimed on behalf of the
clerk that the statute requires him 10
record all such deeds, and that he is en-
titled to a fee therefor.
The matter is of Importance e the
owners OF property and depends for de-
termination upon the true construction Of
grand jury are not advised.
Therefore the following questions are
hereby submitted for your honor'S advice
and direction to the grand jury.
Question-Does the statute require the
county clerk to record at large in his
office deeds to purchasers or their assign
ees, of property sold for delinquent taxes?
AnSwer-It does not, only 10 make a
memorandum of the transaction for which
there is no charge
Question-1f Sc, is the clerk authorized
10 charge a fee for recording?
Answer-He is not.
Question-Is the county clerk entitled
to exact from persons TO whom he exc
cuted a tax deed 90 cents or any other
sum fer taking acknowledgement in ad-
dftion to the 81 allowed by law?
0aestion-lias the clerk the right to re-
fuse to include in one tax deed several
parcels of real estate sold separately and
issued and all held by same party. or if
Included in one deed TO demand for exc
cution thereof more than 81?
AnSwer-No.
TIE questions were presented alone
and the answers given above were
those giver by the court for the jury s
guidance after hearing the arguments
by counsel on both sides
Assistant United States Attorney
Howat and Attorney c. S. Varian ap
peared On behalf OF the people, and
Messrs. Allen & Pence for County
Clerk Stanton.
Attorney c. S. yarian.
The arguments were opened by MIR
Varian, who took the position that the
county clerk was not authorized to re-
cord the deeds at length and charge fol
them. The only recording of deeds ir
extensc, Mr.. Variam argued, was by
the recorder. The county clerk was re
ouested to make a record of the is
suanoe of the deed, not in extenso. bu
IN is<ief form, for the convenience o.
th9 county court The full deed wa.
to be on the recorders book and no.
on the clerks. The claim of Mr.. Stan