The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1899-08-31

THRIFTY jenkins
He Managed to Draw Two
Salaries From Camden
County.
ALL FOR THE SAME WORK
he Is Prosecutor at $4,000
and Draws $500 More
as Assistant

vacancy in the office OF ASSISTANT
cutor OF the Pleas of Camden County
caused by the recent murder OF the late
incumbent, William H.. Carson, mas az
rected the attention anew to the curious
state of affairs which has existed Tor
fhrea wears past with regard to salaries
in the Office of the Prosecutor OF lhe
peas. since March, 1896, it is claimed,
there seemingly has existed a double pro-
vision for the payment of an Assistant
Prosecutor, with the result that lhe
amount paid to Prosecutor jenkins ps
rho county and credited to him as salary,
exceeds by s., 600 the salary fixed by Ia"
for the Prosecutor of the county.
Nv the provision of an act passed IN
1874 the salary of the Prosecutor OF Fieas
- camden County is 1xed at $4,VOo per
anrnm. The next year, however, by an
act approved April l, 1875, an adaitlohai
anowance Of s., 600 was made to the Pros
ac,,tor The act making the allowance
states that this sum is to be PAID 70
the Prosecutor s.for the services OF a
competent assistant, and for the neces-
sary expenses of his office
Under the provisions Of this law VIII
Ham n. Carson was appointed Assistant
Prosecutor March q, 1898.
In the following year an act was pass
al which made other provisions lor an
Assistant Prosecutor. This act, Whlen
became a law March "a, 1886, provided tnat
IL ali counties of the second class, having
4 nonulation of 100, 1000 or over, it shaii pc
lawful for the Prosecutor to appoint an
assistant Prosecutor and that the County
Collector of said county shall pay suen
resistant an annual salary of 5000, which
sum shall be in addition to the salary or
fees received by the Prosecutor OF the
pleas Of any such county" All acts, or
parts of acts, inconsistent with the pro-
visions of the above act are repealed
shortly after, on March 81, 1885, Mr..
Carson resigned as Assistant Prosecutor
and was reappointed on the very same
dav. This new appointment was in
tended to be made under the provisions
of the act of 1856.
Up to the time of his death his salary
was paid by the County Collector IN
equal monthly installments, as required
bv law. The last monthly report OF Coun-
~ Collector WINS shows under the head
of salary account an item of sl66-6s paid
to Mr.. Carson on July q, and one of $500
paid to Mr.. Jenkins on July 10.
Under these circumstances the question
naturally arose as to whether, if the main
purpose of the act Of 1875 had been ac-
complished by the new act of 1896, the al
Aowance of $4,000 did not cease legally.
The form, however, which the question
hook at that time was the raising of a
soubt as to the legality Of the appoint
ment of Mr.. Carson as assistant prose-
cutter under the act of 1896. Among the
- n-~-I - C@.4,frr T7ra0-
holders there is an opinion. written at
the request Of the board by the then So
ucitor of the FreehoIders, Henry s. SEQ
vel. An adverse decision is given with
regard to the validity of Mr.. Carson's
appointment under the law of 1886, be-
cause that law in effect is a special law,
and it is unconstitutional to change the
salary of a public official during hois
term Of Office, except by a general law.
Il further contains these significant
Words
Should It be determined that Mr.. Car
son was appointed regularly and entitled
to receive the 5000 under the act of 1896,
a very serious question would arise,
whether Mr.. Jenkins was entitled to A.000
or 5000 per annum. and whether or not,
by his acceptance Of the resignation of
Mr.. Carson. and his reappointment under
the act Of 1896. he did not thereby accept
the repeater of the act of 1875"
The Board of County Freeholders, how
ever, seems to have been willing to al
low both Mr.. Carson his 5000 and Nj.
jenkins his 5000 per annum Several
years ago, when there was a general in
vestigation Of Camden City and county
affairs. this question, among others, was
touched upon by an investigating COM
mittee. The committee gave it as their
opinion. 1t is said. that the County Audi
tor was authorized fully by law to pay
over to the Prosecutor money from this
allowance for expenses.
There seems, however, to be an opin-
ion held by many men Of admittedly legal
ability in Camden that the extra allow
ance Of $1,000 has been done away by the
act Of 1885,. One Of the best known law
yers in Camden said yesterday
In my Judgment. the repeater attach
ed OF the act of 1896 a~brogated the act
OF 1875. The chief purpose of that act
was to allow the Prosecutor an assist
ant. The assistants appointed under
that act were sworn officials and per-
formed the same work as Mr.. Carson
did. When the office Of assistant prose-
@At0A Wdo 0rtdDtiSAfcus anu d ik6O Saldf},
in addition to that received by the Pros
ecutor. allotted him, it seems to me that
the former act is superseded, As for the
matter of necessary expenses the Pros
ecutor is entitled by law to make affi-
davit to whatever extra expenditure he
is forced to make, and receive back the
money he has thus spent"
Harrison II. Voorhees,, clerk of the
Board of Chosen Freeholders. said yes
terday, when asked for his opinion on
the NATTER
In my judgment MIR. Jenkins is only
the custodian of the money paid to him
under the law Of 1875. ! do not think h
is entitled to draw it as salary
Mr.. Jenkins at present Is absent on a
vacation and It was impossible yester-
day to learn the view he took Of the
matter.