Lincoln County leader. [volume] (Toledo, Lincoln County, Or.) 1893-1987, 1897-12-14
Number 80.
IS 1T RIdHTp

supreme court of the State of Ore
gon handed down an opinion in the
case of Lands VS.. Lincoln county,
ct al. This is the case we'll known
to our readers as the salary case.
When this decision was rendered,
we, in common with the other tax
payers OF the county, hoped that
this question of fees or salary was
settled, and that the county would
be plagued no longer with suits and
contentious over this matter. It
seems that we are to be disappoint-
ed. The county court has taken
the position that these officials are
still on the salary system, and that
they still have the right to set the
salary. Not being absolutely GER
tain in the case though, and seeing
room for further delay in the mat
ter, the court continued the bills of
the clerk and sheriff for a month
longer. The court allowed its own
own bills, however, for salaries and
mileage.
Is this right? Is this honorable?
Is it honest? 1t must be remem-
bered that these officers have re-
ceived no fees or salaries from the
county since the first of August,
1896, over sixteen months ago.
The expenses for running their
offices have not even been paid, and
both Offices owe for work performed
! for the county.
This decision came over a month
ago. Why did not the court inform
itself as to the meaning and import
of it? Why let it run right up to
court time and then delay matters
another month? 1t may be, and no
doubt is a very easy matter for the
court, whose members draw their
pay promptly, to continue this mat
ter, but is it just and right to those
officers who have waited over six
teen months for their pay, and have
been compelled to go to the supreme
court for it? We believe that it is
not.
We do not believe the court to be
sincere in the matter. We are COM
PEELED to believe that it is trumped
up matter to further delay the pay
ment of these officers. The Ian
guage of the supreme court is so
plain that we do not see how it can
be misunderstood, or even admit of
but one Interpretation. The sylla-
bus of the case in the Pacific Re-
porter reads as follows:
81. Acts 1893, p. &c, creating
Lincoln county, provides that that
the sheriff of the county shall re-
ceive the same fees as are now al
lowed by law to the sheriff X
of Benton county, Acts 1898, p.
1863, subsequently enacted, provides
that the sheriff of Benton county
shall receive an annual salary of
81 900. HELD, that Act 1893, p.
&c, was not affected by the subse-
quent enactment; said former law
contemplating that the sheriff of
Lincoln shall receive the same COM
pensation as the sheriff of Benton
county, for like services under the
fee system, and not that the aggre-
gate annual compensation shall be
the same.
~. Acts 1898, p. 1863, changing
the fee system, and fixing the sal
aries of officers in all counties but
one, is not void because special
law in that respect"
Can words be palmer! The act
of 1893 creating the county and put
ting the clerk and sheriff on fees
has not been changed by subse-
quent acts. Does it not look like
the action of the court is but SUBJ
terfuge to gain further time. 1t
looks so to us.
Is it right We don't believe
the taxpayers in the county endorse