The age-herald., 1898-07-10
EXAMINER fUaIF0Y REPLIES
To the Criticism of Sheriff O'Brien on the Lat ter's Explanation of Examiners Report.

Special Dispatch to The Age-Herald.
 Montgomery, July 9.-When State Ex- aminer of Public Accounts Purifoy read Sheriff O'Brien's reply to his report on the sheriff's books yesterday he wrote the fol- lowing reply for The Age-Herald:
 Editor Age-Herald.'
 Among the criticisms of Sheriff O'Brien on my report on his books and accounts he says: Examiner Purifoy in reporting on my claim of 159 days, which make under a ruling of Hon. w. S. White, the present auditor, was well aware of the fact that I have not been paid by the state, and in justice to me he should have explained the claim" The provision of law regu- lating the fees of sheriffs for feeding pris- oners while in jail is found in section 4565 of the present code, and is the same as when the code of 1886 was in operation, and reads as follows: "For feeding each pris- oner in jail under charge or conviction, for any indictable offense, to be paid by the state, for each day $030." It is too plain to admit of controversy that under this provision, 30 cents for feeding a prisoner for one day is the legal sum. It will be noted that Sheriff O'Bren does not deny that he has already, as stated in my re- port, received 30 cents for every day claim ed by him. This fact I am prepared to demonstrate to the satisfaction Of any one, from his paid feed bills He says that his claim is based on ruling of the resent audit9~ and t',at IT, ese prisoners come under the ruling. These prisoners. he claims, were docketed out of jail, where they were held on warrants, to go before committing magistrates for preliminary hearing, and on the same day were docket ed back, to be held on mittimuses, for the action of the grand jury, and that the second commitment, being on different process he is entitled to an additional 30 cents out of the state treasury for feeding them, which additional sum would cause him to receive 60 cents for feeding on those particular days, instead of 30 cents. In a letter to him dated June 2S. in replying to this demand, after quoting the above provison of law, said, "I would be very glad to accede to your demands, put the language of this provision of law Is so plain that cannot permit myself to accept a technical construction, whereby you may receive 60 cents per day, instead or oo cents, for feeding prisoners in 1ail.'
 In the section named are the following additional provisions: For feeding each prisoner confined in jail for contempt or court. or under attachment or as Wit nose or by virtue of any warrant to keep the peace or on account of insanity, 10 pc maid by the prisoner, or by the state II nc is insolvent, for each day SO3o
 ..For feeding prisoner for bastardy pro- cesdings to be paid by the complainahe' ar the defendant, according to the 1udg- ment of the court; or if the party adjudged to nay the costs is insolvent, then to De paid by the state, SOSo.
 If requires no reasoning to demonstrate that the state is not legally responslpie TOT tba feedinp of prisoners held under the charges named in these provisions or law unless they are shown to have been lnsoi- vent. Section 4559 (4S90, provides that "No prisoner shall, be regarded as hsoi, vent without the return of no property ,non execution issued against him in the narticular case and no execution shall De so returned within less than thirty days from the time it goes into the hands ofthe sheriff. c.on;ee
 In these cases in which charged SheflH O'Brien with money collected for their feeo, out of the state treasury, he Tailed to snow me that execution had been issued as re- ouired by this section, hence the fees were not legally due out of the treasury.
 The sheriff further says, "Of the remain- ing sixteen days, of the peace proceedlngs item informed Judge Purifoy that I had tried repeatedly to get executions from two justices of the peace, put Ialieo' and would make another effort, and if sue cessful would send them to him. I have done so. and ere this he will have received them" Under this admission do not see how could have failed to charge the sher- if with the items named, and in the light of the provision of law quoted above, reg ulating the time for returning such execu- lions. Sheriff O'Brien will readily see, and doubtless admit, the inconsistency of his statement in the last sentence Guotedfrom him above.
 1t is not pleasant to engage In newspaper controversy, but believing that Sherif O'Brien has tried to be faithful and honest, in the discharge of his duties, am unwill-