Western Kansas world. [volume] (WaKeeney, Kan.) 1885-current, 1897-05-01

L..
but as the report is not of easy access
to all our readers we submit a brief
statement: The case was taken to the
Supreme Court by the commissioners
of Saline county to avoid paying the
salary of their county clerk a sec
ond time Anderson and Wildman
were candidates for county clerk. An
derson was declared elected. Wild
man contested the election. won the
case. took possession of the office and
drew the salary for three quarters or
nine months. In the meantime the
supreme Court gave the office to An
derSOn. The county commissioners
had during all this time full knowI-
edge of all these proceedings, but
nevertheless paid such salary TO Wild
mon" who was insolvent. Anderson
sued the commissioners in the district
to recover the salary which they had
paid Wildman. as above. The court
gave judgment in favor of Anderson.
The commissioners appealed to the
Supreme Court which makes and an
swers the query, Are the county
commissioners, as representatives of
the county, liable to Anderson for the
salary which they have already paid
to Wildman? We think they are not"
In support of their decision the court
cites seven other decisions but the
Maine case which our county attor-
ney found is not one of them. (See
page 300. The court further says on
this page and the next: ''Wildman
was an officer de facto. He held the
office under color of title. He took
possession of the same In good faith.
under certificate of election duly is
sued, under judgment of ii court OF
competent Jurisdiction" This is eX-
actly the case of Peacock and Barclay.
In regard to the acts of such officers
the court says: such an officer as
Wildman was may mold the office and
perform all the duties thereof pend
ing any litigation concerning the
same. And all his acts connected
with the office will be valid so far as
the public are concerned, unless they
are void for some other reason than
merely that he is only an officer de
factO." What other reasons could be
assigned affecting the legality of such
acts: There are several, for example:
Taking or retaining forcible posses
sion after the annullment of a certifi-
cate in contempt of the decision of Il
court or expiration of term of office:
collision with third persons for the
personal advantage of such officer or
persons in the letting of contracts,
making appointments, etc. The ele-
ment of good faith is wanting. All
of which is readily applicable to the
in this county more es-
pecially the Independent and the
DI1uUoT-
Our county attorney seems to think
the matter of county printing the
most serious question of all for some
reason not stated. He does not feel
justified in advising the board to rec
ognize any official paper in this cOun- |
ty and would thereby vitiate all pro- |
ceedlngS or possibly invalidate all |
legal or official acts requiring publica-
tion in such ''otficial paper" This |
of ri
treasurer, uperintendent, probate |
court, and the commissioners them |
selves, as well as other officials. The |
complications which might arise from |
following such advice are innumera-
ole and far-reaching. With the same
he could have said we
have no superintendent, no purchaS-
lSt district and, in short, the county
would be well-nigh diSorganized. All |
this is to be entailed because of Ger
tain cases now pending in the Su-
Dreme Court" There is no case
pending involving the title to any of
De any such case. But suppose there
vas such a case, the decision already
quoted is a thoroughly reliable guide
or the commissioners. Mr. HutZel,
himself, says that he has partially an
wered the question of the county
question which refers to Mr.. Barclay
IS commissioner. AS the election of
county printer is an act of the board
If which Mr.. Barclay was and is
member acting in good faith, just as
Nildman acted, it is proper to quote
urther. On page 301 we find this:
The public, the county, the county
commissioners, and private individu-
Is had a right to do business with
linn as an officer, and to pay him for
lis services. if they choose, without
aking any risk of having to pay for
UGH services a second time" In re-
ard to pending litigation the court
aises the query, Are they bound to
now who is entitled to the office in
dvance of any final adjucation of the
question by the courts? Are they
'ound to anticipate the decision of
he courts. And are they bound to
ecide the question for themselves, as
thus comes up incidentally and col
aterly in the payment of fees or sala-
"" The court by it's decision an
wers all these negatively. On page
o. we find that the remedy of the
fficer de jure is an action against the
fficer de facto. The Independent,