The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-06-07
Said Treasurer and Probate
Judge Should Report Fees.
MIR. SCHENCK SAYS NO.
Law Which County Clerk Found
Has Been Repealed.
A Controversy of Long Standing
Settled at Last.

An opinion has been given to the
county commissioners, the probate
judge and the county treasurer by j.
J. .Schenck, the county attorney, to the
effect that it is not necessary for the
county treasurer and the probate
judge to make reports to the county
commissioners on the fees collected
by them in the administration of their
offices. And so Frank C. Bowen, the
county treasurer, and r. F. Hayden,
the probate Judge, will continue to
draw their salaries from the county
despite the efforts of S. G. thinner
man, the county clerk, to the contrary.
Soon after Mr.. Zimmerman assumed
the duties of county clerk in January
last he began an investigation of the
affairs Of the county clerks office and
the other county departments as well.
He found, among a variety of other
things. that the county treasurer and
the probate judge had not reported to
the county commissioners the fees
that they had collected for a number
of years. Mr. Zimmerman discovered
a statute which he interpreted as
compelling the county treasurer and
collected by them to the county COM
missioners.
He Immediately notified the county
commissioners of his find" and sug-
gested that the county treasurer and
the probate judge be compelled to re-
port their fees. The matter was taken
up by the county commissioners with
the officers affected and the latter
argued that they were not compelled
to- report their fees.
1t seems hateunder some old laws
the county treasurer and the probate
Judge received as their salaries all the
fees collected in their departments up
to a certain amount and then divided
the surplus with the county and
themselves. This law was changed
SO that these officers were permitted
to retain all their fees. Mr.. thinner
man insisted, however, that they
lected.
But the county treasurer and the
probate Judge argued that while it
was proper for the offices they held to
report their fees when the county had
share in them, the purpose and the
reason for reporting them was multi
fed by the law which gave the officers
in question all their fees.
There the matter rested until a
short time ago when Mr.. Zimmerman
wrote letter TO the county commits
sioners suggesting that they hold UP
thu salaries of the county treasurer
and the probate judge until they had
reported their fees as he believed they
should do.
At this stage of the proceedings the
services of Mr.. Schenck, the county at
torney, We're called in by the county
commissioners and the county treasurer
and probate judge. Mr.. Schenck was
asked fo- an opinion in the premises
and after an investigation of the stat
utes on the subject he finds that the
county officers in question do not have
because the statute, which Mr.. zin1-
norman decided was applicable to the
case; had been repealed by subsequent
6 Mr.. Schenck has filed his written
opinion with the county commissioners
and given a separate opinion of the
same tenor to the county officers af-
fected. His opinions to the three are
identical except the changes In words
to make them fit the proper cases and
an idea of all of them can be obtained
from the one to the probate judge
which is as follows:
sfReplying to your favor of a few
DAYS ago asking me for an opinion as
to the duty of the probate judge of
Shawnee county, Kansas, to make
quarterly statements to the board of
county commissioners as provided Tor
in section IA of chapter 141 of the laws
of 1899 and to perform the other things
specified in said section, beg to say
have given this matter careful con-
sideration and am OF the opinion tnat
said section IA was repealed insofar as
it related > the probate judge of Shaw
nee county, Kansas.
"Section 3 of chapter 214 of the laws
Of 1901, specifically repeats original sec
ton IA of chapter 141 of the laws OF
1899, and all other sections and parts
of sections insofar as they relate to
the probate judge of Shawnee county.
Kansas. therefore conclude that such
a report is not required from you"
This opinion of Mr.. SchenckS ends
t1ne controversy which has been bother
ing the county commissioners, the coun-
tv treasurer and the probate Judge for
months, unless Mr.. Zimmerman sees MT
to carry the question TO the courts