Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1901-01-23
POWERS OF COMMISSIONERS.
Opinion Of the Attorney General Addressed
to Fergus County.

The following is the full text Of the
opinion OF the attorney general re-
ferred to last week:
January IL. 1901.
Hon. Frank L. Smith, County Attor-
ney, or his Successor In Office, Fer
gus County, LewistowD, Montana:
My Dear Sir.-I have your inquiry
OF January LIST, and in reply to the
same will say, the only compensa-
tion that / can find for the county
commissioners of any county in this
state are under section 1929 of the
political code and section 1860. Sec
tions 1870 and 422l provide when they
shall meet. Section 24O, code Of civil
procedure, makes the chairman OF
the board of county commissioners
ex-ofiicio member OF the jury commits
sion. The powers OF the board, as
set out in section 1870 of the political
code, define the powers of the board
of county commissioners. Subdi.
vision % gives them general power
to perform such other duties as are
notspeciiically enumerated and which
may be necessary 10 thief full discharge
of the duties Of the chief executive
authority of the county government.
Section 1902 of the political code
makes an express limitation upon
the members of the board OF county
commissioners, and that section pro-
hibits the members of the board of
county commissioners from being
personally interected in a financial
way in any business transacted for
the county.
Section 4GS1 of the political code
provides what are proper charges
against the county, and whatever
expenses are incurred against the
county must find warrantin this and
succeeding actions.
1t occurs to me that it IL the gen.
eral purpose OF 1902 to keep each
member of the board OF county COM
missioners from in any way profiting
from any personal dealings with the
business uf the county, and for this
reason the board OF county commits
sioners, standing in a trust relation
toward the people of the county,
they should always refrain from
entering into contracts with the
county that are of a %pecuniary inter
est to such members. There Is no
doubt il my mind but what, In the
construction of public buildings and
bridges, that thecounty commissions
ers can employ some person to super
intend the work and see that the
work is done In accordance with the
contract, and II, at any time, condi'
lions should arise whereby 1t becomes
at all advisable to employ any oneol
the members of the board OF county
commissioners to do such work, the
compensation allowed for such work
would only he such compensation az
would be paid to any other individ'
ual. There is nothing In the law oI
our state authorizing the board oI
county commissioners to select the
chairman or any member OF the board
acting in the capacity Of a commits
sioner to make visits to points in the
county where any bridges are In the
course OF construction. II he 10 EN-
ployed at all to do such work. 1t mus
be as a private citizen, and he cannot
draw mileage or draw IS a day fol-
such services, but the county com
missioners should pay him only sucl
compensation for such services al
they could employ any other com
petent man for.
In the case of Miller VI. Smith. G
Pacific, 624, the court held: Board
OF county commissioners are given
general supervisory power oyercoun
ty affairs, butthey cannot as a hoard
or as individual members thereof
perform the duties imposed by lawo l
any other county officer and draw
compensation as county commis
sioners therefor. A board OF count.
commissioners has no authority I,
appropriate money for repairing ant
constructing roads and bridges AM
place the same at the disposal OF
member OF such board aud authoriz
him to superintend the construction
OF such work and then allow hlr
compensation as a commissioner 10
SO doing"
This case discusses the powers an
duties OF county commissioners yer
fully and ought to give you such ligh
on the question as will leave the ma
ter without any doubt as to the dut
VI county commissioners.
See also Rankin vs.. Jauman,