The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-01-11
HELLO PUTS IN A CLAIM
For Services Rendered as Mayor
Thompson's Substitute.
1T JUST OCCURRED TO HIM
The Aldermen Allowed 1t to Remain in
Statu Quo for More Than a Year
Impurities In the City Hall,
So 1t Is Said.

is there salary grab combine in the
present city council?
Probably not, but a good many peo-
pie have noticed that the old city hall
has been rented to one of the aldermen
for less than some one else offered for
1t, that the chief of police is paid a per-
centage on fines collected from disso-
lutte women, although his salary is sup
posed to be full compensation for all
services to the city, and that the assist
ant city attorney has a bill in for $3.50
Tor extra compensation on account of
the Margaret Joyce case. But most
outrageous of all is the bill which has
been presented by Alderman John c.
Heilig, which is now in the hands of the
judiciary committee and will be con-
sidered by them at meeting to be held
tomorrow afternoon.
This bill of Mr.. Helig's is for services
as acting mayor during the admins
tration of Mayor Thompson. 1t is as
follows:
The city of Butte to John c. .Heilig,
debtor.
TO services as acting mayor dur
ing absence of Mayor Thomp-
son. Aug. % to Sept. 10, 1896 at
9o.'o per Jay. ........-... -slZf DO
To services as acting mayor dur
ing absence of Mayor Thomp-
son, from Jan. IS to March 1,
1897, at $3.50 per day. liz. 81
Iotai. ......... .................. x299 SO
Why on earth Alderman Heilig waited
until this late day to render his bill to
the city is the question which naturally
arises first of all. The explanation
given on this point by Alderman Heilis
himself is that he didn't think of it until
the other day. 1t suddenly struck him
that the city ought to have paid him
for his services as acting mayor.
If Alderman Heilis has any claim to
extra compensation at all it is from
Mayor Thompson. The latter received
his salary while he was absent from
Butte and the time for Mr.. Heilig to
put in his claim was when the service
was rendered and before Thompson was
paid. Yet Mr.. Heilig himself signed the
warrants for Thompsons salary during
his absence and said nothing about
wanting that salary himself
1t was Mr. Thompson. not the city,
which employed Alderman Heilg to
act as mayor, and it is Mr.. Thompson
who should pay him. 1t is certainly not
right that the city should have to pay
both.
Mr.. Heilig does not ask for any inter-
est on his back claim and that is a
strange thing. Probably he intends the
interest to balance his salary as alder
man which he receives when acting as
mayor.
The matter is to be considered by the
Judiciary committee tomorrow after
noon but it is not likely that many of
the aldermen Will countenance this sal
airy grab. The committee would do well
before acting to read section 1872 of the
laws of Montana relating to municipal
corporations. This reads:
''All accounts and demands against
a city or town must be presented to the
council duly itemzed, and accompanied
by an affidavit of the party or his
agent, stating the same to be true and
correct account against the city or town
for the full amount for which the same
is presented, and that the same accrued
as set forth. and with all necessary and
proper vouchers, within one year from
the date the same accrued; and any
claim or demand not SO presented with
in the time aforesaid is forever barred
and the council has no authority to al
low any account or demand not so pre-
scented, nor must any action be MAIN
tanned against the city or town for or
on account of any demand or claim
against the same, until such demand or
claim has first been presented to the
council for action thereon"
SO the first portion of Mr.. Heiligs bill
is outlawed anyway. the service having
been rendered more than a year ago.
But the second portion of the bill is no
less outrageous