The Brookings register. [volume] (Brookings, Brookings County, S.D.) 1903-1971, 1907-07-18
THE LAW is SPECIFIC
In Regard to Fixing Compensation OF
County Officials and
AUDITOR MURPHY MUST REFUND
The Seven Hundred Dollars He Now
illegally Holds

DO many Au4utkiOo hoNo OOSh AA~NS
and inasmuch as the public has
direct interest in the matter we have
endeavored to get at the facts relating
to the charge made by States Attorney
Eidem that county auditor 2. j..
Murphy has been receiving more
salary than the law allows him. In
the recital of this case the REGISTER
will endeavor to contine itself to the
facts and leave the public to draw
their own conclusions. The apparent
misappropration of the county funds
is more far reaching than was at first
supposed as will be seen by the ex-
tracts taken from the commissioners
proceedings.
The demand made by the states at
torney upon County Auditor Murphy
reads as follows:
State Of South Dakota)
(ss.
County Of Brookings. }
TO P. J. Murphy, County Auditor:
In behalf of BroOkings County, the
undersigned hereby demands that you
repay to the County Treasurer the
sum Of 800, wrongfully and unlaw-
fully obtained by you from the said
Brookings County, the said amount
being the amount by you over and
above your salary fixed by law at
Twelve Hundred Dollars per annum;
and you ar further notified that un
less the said amount with interest at
the rate Of seven per cent per annum
be paid back into the County Treasury
of BroOkings County, within ten days
from this date, proceedings will be
commenced against you.
Dated at Brookings, South Dakota,
July 9, 1907
Olaf Eden.
States Attorney in and for
Brookings County, South Dakota.
BY referring to the commissioners
proceedings for January 1905 it is
recorded that:
"The board then took up the matter
of salary OF county auditor as provided
by section 894 of chapter 207 of the
session laws of 1903, the salary of the
county auditor was fixed at fifteen
hundred dollars per year, said salary
to be in force and effect from the first
day OF January, 1904, as agreed upon.
The raise was made in line of the
percentage figured on the valuation of
the county as provided in above named
section and chapter, which PERCENTAGE
raise in salary, therefore, by advice of
the states attorney, said salary was
raised"
The ground taken by States Attorney
Eidem is that the commissioners have
no authority to fix" a salary of any
county official which they clearly did
in this case upon the advice of the
states attorney then acting as the
legal adviser OF the board.
The state constitution states that
"the legislature shall provide by gen.
eral law the duties and compen-
sation Of all county, township and dis
trics officers"
The legislature fixed the salary Of
the county auditor at 1920 per year,
and the constitution does not delegate
to the legislature the privilege Of al
lowing the county commissioners to
"6x" the salaries of county officials
which seems to have been done in the
case under discussion. Nor does the
constitution or the legislature delegate
to the county commissioners the au-
thority to pay any county Official
"extra salary" for past services which
it is indicated they did from the fol-
lowing entry in the record of proceed
ings for January 1905. wherein it states
the salary of $500 was "fixed" to be
in force aud effect from the first day of
January 1904, as agreed upon"