The Kootenai herald. [volume] (Kootenai, Idaho) 1891-1904, 1901-11-15
GRAHAM'S LETTER.
County Attorney James Graham Wants
the Ex-Commissioners to Refund.

ex-bOard of commissioners had
over paid themselves in salary and
expenses the sum Of $3547.5O.
Mr.. Graham's figures show that
Elk Commissioner Sisson had earned
$40, had drawn $1975.35, hav-
ing over paid himself the sum of
$1216.95!
That Ex-Commissioner Tucker
had earned $7O3.2O, had drawn
$197S.20, having over-paid himself
sl273,0O.
That Ex-Commissioner Ditto
more had earned 1921 so, had
drawn $1779.35, having over-paid
himself $1O5755.
These several sums the county
attorney'is endeavoring to have re-
funded to the county treasury, 1t
is common rumor that he is not
meeting with much encouragement
around the court house, some of the
Fusionists being stricken with con-
sternation by the way Graham has
been cutting off their graft.
The county attorney did secure
an order for a demand for the
amount claimed to be due, and the
following letter contains the latest
phase of the matter. 1t is the let
ter referred to in these columns in
Il previous issue:
CoEUR d ALENE, Idaho, OCT. 10,
1901 The Hon. Board of County
Commissioners, Kootenai County,
Idaho.-Gentlemen: In response
10 the notice heretofore ordered TO
be given to the retiring County
Commissioners, Tucker, Sisson and
Dittemore, and their bondsmen, to
refund to the county the several
amounts in excess of the compen-
sation allowed by law which they
allowed to and paid themselves, no
response has been recei we'd except
from Commissioner Dittemore, who
files supplemental bill for services
claimed to have been rendered,
which bill | transmit herewith for
your consideration.
In doing so | desire to call your
special attention TO the decision of
the Supreme Court of the State of
Idaho in the case of Miller VS.
Smith, decided June 81, 1900, and
reported in the Pacific Reporter,
Volume 81, page S24, Smith then be-
ing ID Commissioner of Fremont
County this State.
The first item in Mr.. Dittemore's
supplemental claim or bill is:
Three trips to Spokane see Oliver in regard to
to Occur d Alene bridge contract days, $500.
Compare this with the following
item in the claim or bill of Smith,
defendant above mentioned:
May 90 trip to Market Lake to order repairs
ON roads and bridges, days at s. day, S2iOO
These two items are almost iien-
teal, and the Supreme Court held
in the Smith case sup-a) that such
items were illegal charges and re-
moved Mr.. Smith from the office OF
Commissioner.
Ali of the other items in Mr.
Dittemore's supplemental Till are
similar to and for like services as
the item above given, and in
my opinion are not legal charges
against Kootenai County.
The last item in Mr.. Dlttemore's
supplemental bill Or claim is as
follows:
Mileage, 2S56 miles. Si2s.4O
In the case of Pointing VS. Isamar
decided by the Supreme Court o.
this state Oct. %, 1900, and reported
in the Pacific Reporter, page $40
volume 81, (Mr. Isamaa was al
that time Commissioner of Nei
Perez County this State we find
the following claim or bill:
To days services viewing roads, $500
To 20 miles, Sc OU
The Supreme Court in decidin,
the above case said:
II wasillegal for said commissioner 70 presen
20 the board Of commissioners claims for mile
age, claims for services rendered N vie Ter q
roads or bridges.
In view of the foregoing deci-
sions it seems lain that the sup
plemental bill of Dittemore aud th