The Ogden standard. [volume] (Ogden City, Utah) 1902-1910, 1909-02-27
REPREHENSIBLE ATTEMPT
AT SALARY=M GRABBING
Prominent Attorney Condemns the Waterwos Bill
Language Unmsakable- What the Duties of Public Of
fcer Are-Why the Measure Should Be Defeated
Open Letter to the Standard.

To the Ogden Standard: Marvellous
as IL may seem. | and myself, in the
main. in accord with the editorial ex-
pressions of the Standard in reference
to the billnow pending before the leg
islature Of this state. by which 1t is
proposed TO create a commission to
control our city water works system.
The proposition in the bill, as intro
duced, to make the city attorney cx-
oinclo attorney for the commission and
TO pay him one hundred dollars per
month Tor his services as such, Is
ABOUT the most reprehensible attempt
at salary-grabbing that / have ever
known. Aside from the litigation
which was pending between the Ogden
water Works company and the Union
Pacific Railroad company at the time
the city purchased the water system.
and for the continuation of which Mr..
Richards has been employed, as | un-
derstand, what litigation in which the
city would be interested Is likely to
arise which ought not to be attended
to by the city attorney in his official
capacity?
When any person seeks and accepts
a public office. he undertakes to per-
form the duties OF the Office for the
salary provided for by law. and, II
necessary, to devote all his time to
the performance OF such duties. or
course, if, after devoting all his time
to the performance Of the duties of his
Office. public officer is unable. by rea-
son Of the amount of public business to
be done. to perform all the duties of
the Office, then the public should fur
nish and pay for assistants. but not
otherwise.
public officer. VINO is receiving
an annual salary. has no more right
to devote any of his time to private
business where the duties of his Of
fee demand all his time, than would
an employe oi any private person, who
is employed by the year OF by the
month have to devote part OF the
time for which be receives pay. To
his own business, or In the employ"
ment Of another; nor, has he any right
to demand any extra pay for services
performed by him as such officer, no
matter how burdelsome the duties
may become. So long as he chooses
to hold the office. be must devote ills
time TO the performance of the duties
imposed by law for the salary fixed
by law
Now, whatever services Of an at
torney might be required by the pro.
posed commission. would be rendered
for the benefit of the city, and should
be performed by the city attorney,
provided he has time TO perform
these and other duties devolving up
on him as such, and he would not be
entitled to any extra pay. If he would
not have time 20 perform the duties
of attorney TO The proposed commits
sion in addition to the duties now inn
posed by law. pray what is the object
of paying him another hundred dollars
per month. In other words, If he has
time to perform these duties. 1t is his
duty to do so for the salary which
was provided by law at the time he
accepted the Office If he has not the
time to perform the duties, for what
would the city be paying the extra
one hundred dollars per month?
In my opinion. the bill should be
defeated for another reason. II Gre
ates new Offices and thus divides tho
responsibility for the proper conduct
Of the affairs of the city and In
creases the expenses. which must be
borne by the taxpayers. Divided re-
sponsibility always results disastrous
ly to the public. We already have too
many officers. | believe II we had
three councilWen elected by the cleo
Al
required TO devote their entire time to
the interests Of the city and who
should be paid reasonable salary
for their time, Il would be much bet
ter for the community at large.
Respectfully, (Signed)
A. w. AGEE.