The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1909-02-02
Oninion on a Protest..

At the meeting of the Board of Free
holders on the first of January the bill Of
Joseph L. Hilton, for expenses as County
Supervisor of Roads, was not allowed, but
the Board increased the salary of the Of
| fetal $500 to cover such items. This &C
ton was criticised by some and the matter
was called to the attention of County
Auditor Peacock. 1t was suggested that
recent decision on the point that a mem
Der of Board of Education could not be
District Clerk because he was in position
to use his influence to secure his election
and also would have the right to vote on
his salary, would apply to similar cases
in any other body.
Somebody filed protest with the Audi
tor against the payment to Mr.. Hilton of
his salary on the grounds mentioned.
] The Auditor asked the Attorney General
for an opinion on the subject and was in
formed that the matter should be referred
to the County Solicitor Accordingly Mr..
Peacock asked Solicitor Merritt for his
views, sending the following letter:
Charles E. Merritt, Esq,
Solicitor of the Board of Freeholders,
Mount Holly, N. ].
Dear Sir:-There has been protest
fled with me by citizen Of Burlington
county against the payment Of any salary
to Joseph L. Hilton, Supervisor of the
Roads of this county. l would ask your
opinion on the points raised in the pro-
test. l took this matter up with the
Attorney General and he referred me to
you.
The points raised are as follows: Mr.
Hilton was appointed Supervisor while a
member of the Board of Freeholders and
still sits as such member, also as Super
visor.
l. Is a member of such Board eligible
to such appointment
g. But, if inadvertently appointed, and
performing the duties, is the office legally
YacantT
8. A member serving as Supervisor is
reelected, qualities and sits in the Board
which raises his salary Does this dis
qualify and vacate his appointment as
Supervisor?
Trusting to hear from you at an early
Yours very truly
ROBERT PEACOCK,
County Auditor.
To these queries the Auditor received
the following answer:
Robert Peacock, Esq,
County Auditor,
| Dear Confirming my conversation
of yesterday, / would answer in reply to
your questions:
LIST. Yes.
I'd. No.
Sd. No.
1t will be seen that this appears to be
against an opinion given by the Attorney
General in another case, but l think it is
because of statute and my coming to the
question from another standpoint
Notwithstanding that have given this
as my opinion l would advise that you
notify Mr.. Hilton that protest had been
fled l would also advise protestant that
Mr.. Hilton is rde facto officer of the
Board and that you consider that you
haye no right to refuse to pay his salary,
except you are enjoined by proper court,
and that you will hold the matter for him
to procure an injunction.
Yours truly
CHARLES EVAN MERRITT
January 90, 1909
By the above opinion it will be seen
the law and that the act of the Board OF
Freeholders in increasing his salary was
legal The opinion as it now stands not
only justifies the action in the case under
discussion but it establishes the fact that
member of the Board of Freeholders
may be elected to any Office in the gift Of
that body and have his salary adjusted,
except of course where the law
specifically designates otherwise. While
Mr.. Hilton sits in the Board of Freeholders
and takes part in the discussions and set
Element of such matters as are presented,
as well as looking after the affairs of his
township, he does not benefit from his
office, as he does not draw any salary as
Freebooter, nor get any fees on that ac-
count. so that the latter Office is practically
no benefit to him pecuniarily, while oc-
cupying much of his time.