The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1904-09-21

| Dy WHICH tu6 COulmiSSIOu w UO 0p-
pointed by the governor should arrive
at the status of the accounts between
the several counties They certainly
had no right in the first instance to
delegate the power and the response
bility to another tribunal to settle the
amount. But they would have right
to employ such person or persons as
they might see fit, to make calcula-
tions for them, or to use sucn agen-
cies as were at their command to
bring the matters before them for
their consideration. In this case,
there we're two matters referred, viz:
The matter of the school claims, to
the superintendent of education; and
the value of the chain gang equipment
to the county supervisors. Doubtless,
in doing this the commissioners con-
cluded that these several officers were
better informed on these subjects
than they could possibly be, and if
the matter stood in this shape, with
out having been referred back to the
commission for it's approval, I might
hesitate to hold that they could 60 so
far.
But this is no longer an open ques-
tion. Their action has been passed
upon and has been sanctioned by the
Legislature and if we substitute the
word Commission for County
Commissioners, as used in the case
of. Mclaughlin against the county
commissioners. the language there
would be appropriate, viz:
cit will hardly be questioned. and
certainly cannot be successfully dis
puted, that where there has been a
full exercise of the functions of the
! Commission county commissioners
and that action receives the direct as
sent of the Legislature, that that is
! the end of the NATTER
So whatever this commission has
done up to this point, has received
the sanction OF the Legislature, and
the presumption is that it acted with
full information upon the subject
upon which it legislated.
I take it that it is not necessary to
cite the cases at length to support the
doctrine that where there is sufficient
money in the treasury applicable to
the payment of claim, it is the duty
Of the county commissioners to draw
their check for it's payment I think
that the case of The State, Elk. Rel,
Marshal VS. Startling, Il S. c., page
262 is conclusive along that point
This was an application for a Writ
of Mandamus to compel the county
Commissioners of Richland County
to draw their check upon the treasurer
of the county in favor of the petitioner
for two hundred dollars, his quarters
salary as trial Justice
In that case, the Court says:
cit seems that the commissioners
have already approved claims to the
amount of the funds in the treasury
which are still unpaid. It is not ex-
planned why they have not issued
checks for these approved claims but
it is admitted that the funds in the
treasury have not been actually ap-
piled by order or check for the pay
ment OF any particular claims
In that case, it appeared that the
REALTORS salary for the month of Octo-
Der, 1879, s66. .66 was claim for that
fiscal year, and there being money IL
the treasury for the payment of the
class of claims to which it belonged,
the county commissioners were order
ed to draw a check upon the treasur-
the case, the Supreme Court said:
1.-The county commissioners have
no discretion to allow or reject this
claim. It is for salary and need rot
be audited. 1t is fixed by law and or
dered to be paid.
When there is money in the treasury
subject to the payment of legal claims
against the county and not actually
applied to other claims, it is the duty
of the county commissioners to check
fora salary fixed in amount and or
dered to bs paid by the county as
ministerial act positively required
by law The peremptory writ of man
damus should issue requiring the
county commissioners of Richland
county to draw their check upon the
county treasurer, in favor of the re
lator, for s66.66 his salary as trial
justice for the month of October
last.''
A recurrence to the case of Nc
Laugblin against county commission
ers, supra, will show that there is no
difference between the payment of a
salary and any other claim, the
amount of which is fixed by law. In
that case, it is said:
"When an Act directs money to be
paid from a public treasury, but does
not specify the mode of making pay
ment, it is to be regarded as interest
ing that such payment, as to matters
of form, shall be made in conformity
to the general regulations Of law re-
specting payments of such class or
character.
Such an Act imposes specific obli
CATION upon all officers having duties
to perform necessary for the making
of such q payment, under the general
laws relating to that subject, upon the
familiar principle that legislative
mandate implies the requisite means
of it's performance, if in the general
compass Of the powers of the officers
by whom the mandate ought to be
executed. Mclaughlin VS.. County
Commissioners. S. c., page 377.
So it seems that wherever it is made
the duty of>the County Commissioners
to pay claim, ard they have the
100, 4o do On and tho came hoc heen