Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1905-03-06
STATE NOT LIABLE
FOR FAKE CLAIMS.
Need Not Pay BOunties on the
Certificates for 100000 Now
Outstanding
COUNTY CLERKS NEGLIGENT.
Exceeded Their Authority and Must
Foot the Bill--That Deputy Did
1t Is No Excuse.

The state is not liable for the $4,000
or more outstanding fraudulent bounty
claims.
II Il desires TO pay them It can recoy-
er from the county clerks who issued
the fraudulent certificates. and their
bondsmen,
The purchasers Of the certificates,
who now hold them, can recover from
county clerks and their bondsmen for
the amounts Of their certificates.
These are the leading conclusions of
an opinion prepared by Attorney Gem
eral NJ. A. Breeder, in reply 20 a request
from the legislative committee on bouu,
ty frauds. that he define the status OF
the state In regard to the claims. The
opinion places the responsibility square
~ on the shoulders Of the county clerks,
who under the law cannot shift any Of
Il TO their deputies, In issuing fraudu-
lent certificates they exceeded their
right to represent the state and bind IL
by such contracts as the law author
lied them to make, where claims were
valid and proper
The fun text Of the opinion follows:
Salt Lake city March 4, 1905 Hon,
mittee on Bounty and Bounty Frauds.
Sir Your favor OF the End inst duly
at hand In which you refer to what Is
known as the bounty frauds and re-
quest my opinion on behalf Of the joint
committee upon the following points,
towit:
"There are upwards Of S58, 900 in boun-
~ certificates still outstanding and UNI
paid. OF this amount the committee Is
convinced that certificates representing
not less than $4,000, and probably more,
were originally procured by fraud eth
er by the presentation Of skins which
had already been cancelled but which
passed through the clerks office, owing
either 10 the negligence or connlyance
of county clerks or their deputies, etc.
The committee is further convinced
that practically none OF these fraudu-
lent certificates are now held by the
original claimants, but by parties 10
whom they have been assigned for a
valuable consideration.
Il. Is the state legally liable for the
payment of any Of these fraudulent
certificates In the hands OF these as
slsnees2
%, II the state Is liable and there
fore. forced 20 take up these certlh-
Gates, or II not been absolutely liable
fne STATE SNOull uttlu II k0Vu policy 10
pay the same. could the state recover
over against the county clerks or their
bondsmenY
90. II the state should decline TO take
up these certificates which are known
to be tainted with fraud, could the
present owners thereof recover the face
value Of the same In suits brought by
them against the county clerk ISSUING
the same and hold the bondsmen OF
such county clerk therefore,"
TO your first question | beg TO reply
IN the negative, The statute providing
for bountles TO be paid for the destruc-
ton OF certain wild animals also pro-
yides thai under proper conditions ana
upon the exhibition Of the skins on
scalps of animals claimed 60 have been
killed under the provisions OF the law,
TO the county clerks OF the yrlous coun-
ties of the state, such clerk when salts
fed that the law has been compiled
with. shall issue under the seal OF his
office, certificate addressed 20 the
auditor Of the state and IL shall be the
duty OF said auditor TO ille the same ana
draw a warrant for the amount specl-
fed In such certificate, on the state
treasurer for payment according 10 law,
etc. IL viii be observed that the law
makes the county clerks the public
agents OF the state 10 carry out lts pros
Visions. and I'm the absence OF fraud or
collision, the acts OF such agents acting