The Dickinson press., 1909-05-15
MeeREeoR REPLIES: REPLIES
Charges of Keeping Fees
1llegally-Cites Conditions in
Other Counties and Gives
Letters on the Question.

"sASAS Sa'oASAA8 AAo Will having dpptO.
priated to my own use, certain fees.
property belonging to the county.
deem 1t but fair to the tax payers of
our county to give the facts in the case
as they are and shall appreciate the
use of space in your valuable publica-
ton to that end.
Those who know the editor of the
Chronicle and Senator Martin know very
well. that this matter was not brought
up by them because of their intense
devotion to the interests of the tax
payers of the county. So far as Mi.
Martin is concerned it is only the pur-
suance of a personal srudge against
me. To show the Chronicle editors
abiding love for the tax payers of the
county. il is only necessary to quote a
matter of record. Within the past two
months it has been necessary for the
board of county commissioners to cut
his sworn bills from a total of $107. 05
to $28. IS. Those whose motives and
business transactions are. to say the
least. questionable. are sure to be The
first to question the motives and actions
of others.
Now to the facts. 1t is a fact that
there is some difference of opinion
among the lawyers and others as to the
intention of the statute fixing the
salary Of the county auditor. Many
of the brightest lawyers of the state
claim that the intention is that the
auditor is entitled to the fees of his
office. until his salary reaches the
maximum of So, 500 a year. The
State association of. county auditors.
after a thorough investigation, has so
decided. There are only four counties
in the state in which the auditors
salary. reaches the maximum and con-
sequently are not affected by the
statute. In all the other counties of the
state. the auditor retains the fees refer
ed to as a part of the salary to which
he is entitled.
There has been as yet, no court deci-
sion rendered to establish the intent of
the statute. and until such an opinion
has been handed down there is absolute
ly no reason why the auditor should not
continue to abide by the construction
placed upon the statute by the stat
association.
I have received a number of letters
from county auditors throughout the
state. all of which uphold the position
I have taken pending a court decision, |
and by permission. l publish the one
from Hon. ]. w. Healy, county auditor
of Burleigh county:
County Auditors Office, Burleigh Co.
Bismarck. N. D.. April II. 1903.
Hon. J.. A. McGregor. i
Medora, N. D.
Dear Sir:
In reply to yours of the 10Th inst.
will say that l have no opinion on file
as to tranfer fees, but our states attor-
ney. Patterson. told me in the presence
of the assistant attorney general. that
the auditor was not required to turn
over any fees, such as tranfer fees and
filing bonds, until the salary limit of
So, 500. 90 per year was reached. This
limit is reached by Cass, Grand Forks,
Ward and Richland counties only. The
bill introduced in the legislature this
last winter requiring the county auditors
to turn in all fees was indefinitely post
poned and did not become a law. l am
retaining all fees and will continue to
do 80. In fact. our commissioners do
not ask for the fees after talking with
the states attorney.
Yours very truly,
l. W. Healy,
Auditor of Burlei9h county, North Dakota.
l am also in receipt of the following
letter from the Hon. S. Nc
Pherson. county auditor of Steele county,
N. D., to show that the father of this
much discussed statute. Senator John
son himself, says that the intent of the
statute is that the fees should be re-
tanned until the salary limit of ST.
oUU. w Is reacQeQ.
County Auditors Office. Steele Co.
Sherbrook. N. D., May 7, 1909.
J.. A. McGreeor. Auditor Billings Co.
Medora. N. D.
Dear Sir:
notice by the Fargo Forum that
the question of the auditor retaining the
fees for transferring deeds has come up
in your county.
: This same matter came up in our
county in 1907. but was not taken into
court as our states attorney decided that
the auditor was lawfully entitled to the
fees in case the salary did not exceed
the limit of 81. 500. 90. s. B. 325
was introduced by Senator johnson Of
Mel can cOl1ntv aa the hill ia aOrnovyhat Il