Lewiston teller. [volume] (Lewiston, North Idaho) 1878-1900, 1899-02-15
The Question of Deputies.


SHtllH LAY IoI, oi NdltNoH county HAS
again tested the question Of a sheriff.
right to deputies by an appeal to the
courts, The county commissioners re
fused to appoint deputies, and to declare
the urgency demand for deputies to per
form work of the office.
BY this decision, which is entirely i'll
line with former reports of the proceed
ings of the supreme court, the vcXed
question is very much simphfed. 1t is
made the duty of the commissioners to-
determine whether or not deputies are
required to look after the interests of the
county, and to determine how many
deputies if any are required. They are
| also required by the law and the sew
eral decisions to fix the pay for such dep
uties.
This question has been unduly ex-
plotted by officials all over the state who
are seeking notoriety as economists, be-
leving as they do that large class Of
voters cannot distinguish between econo-
my and their niggardly policy that Ell
dangers public service.
The question plainly stated is that the
commissioners are bound by their oath of
Office to determine how many deputies
| will be required to look after the public
interests i'll the various county offices,
and to provide them. If these deputies
| are not provided the sheriff and auditor,
| for instance, are not responsible to the
| public for the execution of processes for
| the safety of criminals in Jail or the pro-
| lection of the property of taxpayers be
| yond what he can effect personally. A
| logical construction of the constitution
and the court decisions would also justl-
fly the auditor i'll the neglect Of all coun-
ty business beyond what he can accom-
plsh by his own work if the commission
ers- do notprovide deputies and pay THAR
salaries.
The section of the state constitution
covering the subject is as follows; "The
sheriff, auditor and recorder and clerk of
the district court shall be empowered by
the county commissioners to appoint
such deputies and clerical assistance as
lhe business of their offices may require,
said deputies and clerical assistance to
receive such compensation as may be
fixed by the county commissioners"
This is good vigorous English and the
supreme court has interpreted this provi-
sion in a plain, consistent, logical way
at least three times.
The official who has failed to compre-
hend this plain provision Of the law has
been sadly deficient i'll legal learning or
he has been too indolent to read the laws
published for his guidance.
The most popular conclusion will be
that all contention raised in the premises
was raised for cheap notoriety with the
ignorant element of voters who might
support him in the pursuit of forlorr
hope.
To bring this question down to loca
issues there was one and only one course
for the county commissioners to follow
and that was to provide all the deputies
required to perform the official work o
the various county offices. 1t was not thu
province of these commissioners to risl
danger to the public interests by INSULT
cient force in any Of these offices. Th
commissioners are much responsible t
the people for the faithful performance Q
their duties in proper order and in du
time. If the auditor or sheriff is no
able to do the work in his respectiv
Office alone and unaided the commission
ers must furnish him aid. Unless til,
! commissioners authorize the employment
of deputies these assistants cannot eve
collect pay out of the fees allowed by la'
for the very work they perform. An
this is as it should be. The constitutio
and the law are equitable and logica
All this disturbance comes from ignt
rance of application of the laws and til
court decisions.
With this decision of the Canyon cour
!. ty case staring them iii the face with TIL
section quoted from the constitution gi'
en- to the public, will the county attorne
of this or any other county still conten
that deputies cannot be paid by the coui
: ty? If they shall contend so where wi
! they find sympathizing audiencea
IA 7 .vyt4p