The Dalles daily chronicle. [volume] (The Dalles, Or.) 1890-1948, 1895-01-21
WRONG IN PRINCIPLE.

One of the lessons learned by the busi
ness collapse of 1898 is that the bonds
given by sheriffs and oJher financially
responsible public servants must be
carefully scrut1nized and properly drawn
up if they are to insure the county from
loss through the dishonesty or inetl-
cheney of the principals This lesson
has been a costly one, not only to Multi
nomah county, but in large degree to
Columbia and other counties OF the
state. The first requirement of prud-
ence in the administration OF county
affairs is in choosing capable business
men for the offices; the next is to see
that these officers furnish responsible
bonds, and that no loop-hole is left
through which these sureties can escape
the obligation assumed In the event that
the contingency, against which the re-
quirement of bonds was interposed,
arises. Compliments and coafidences
between friends and political and finan-
cial bed-fellows are all right, but it may
be hoped that they will not again be-
come ruling factors in the transaction of
the business of Multnomah county
Oregonian.
We have always thought that the
system of placing public officials under
bonds was wrong one. It is wrong in
When the people elect a man to Office
why should they require of two or three,
or half-dozen individuals that they
become responsible for the shortcom-
ings of the man whom the people have
selected? For instance, Smith and
Jones are opposing candidates for the
Office of county treasurer. One political
party has selected Smith and stated to
the world by putting him on its ticket
that it believes him to be strictly hon
est and capable and in every way quail
fed to fill the Office. The other polit-
ical party does the same thing for Jones.
In the election Smith gets two-thirds of
the entire vote of the county. When it
is time for him to assume the duties of
the Office to which he has been elected,
the law steps in and says: "While it
is true that you have been selected for
this Office by two-thirds of the legal
voters of this county, they cannot be
held responsible for their acts, and you
must have some individuals stand good
for any loss that might occur, provided
the people have made a mistake"
Smith then hustles around among his
friends, and they become his sureties,
standing good for the peoples choice to
the people. Now if the man whom the
people elected, and his friends, perhaps
unwillingly, became surety for, proves
dishonest, the law not bothering much
about Smith, Furnishes perfectly honest
and reputable citizens for his ofense by
fining them and confscating their prop
erty for the good of the public, for no
offense greater than having confidence
in Smith, whom the people recommend
ed to them by their votes as being wor-
thy of that confidence.
We believe the system entirely and
unqualifedly wrong. We believe that
no bonds should be required, but that
in case of misfeasance or malfeasance in
Office the law should punish the offender
himself. That punishment should be
made severe and certain. If the law
must have somebody from whom to re-
coup, let it arrange for taking enough
from his relatives, if he has any, to
make good any losses. Let it go further
and render his relations, within certain
degrees, ineligible for any position of
public trust. This would evidently be
unjust, but it would not be as unjust as
the present law.
Let the law recognize the fact that the
criminal is the one to punish, instead
of his friends, and see to it that he is
punished, aud there would be no Eeces-
sity for making one or two citizenslof the
county become guarantors that the ma
jority of the voters of the county had
not made fools of themselves in electing
their officers. If the bonding system is
to continue, the laws should be changed,
so that the bondsmen should have some
kind of show, for they, instead of the
people, should be allowed to elect the
person for whom they become RESPONSE
ble.